Philippe Aris Anastasia Ulanowicz, University of Pittsburgh

Philippe Ariss Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life (1960) is one of the most influentialand divisivehistories of childhood ever written. ri!inall" pu#lished in $rench% under the title LEnfant et La Vie Familliale Sous LAncien Regime, Ariss stud" puts forth the controversial claim that childhood% as a concept% was not &discovered' until well after the middle a!es. Aris himself was not a professional historian( rather% he wor)ed as an archivist for the *nstitute of Applied +esearch for ,ropical and -u#tropical $ruits. .owever% as an amateur historian% he was !reatl" interested in the histor" of the famil". Aris was especiall" concerned with counterin! conservative claims that the twentieth/centur" famil" was sufferin! a decline( he sou!ht to prove% instead% that the famil" as we )now it toda"a private% domestic circle founded upon mutual affectionis a relativel" new concept. ,o confirm this claim% Aris chose to stud" the fi!ure now considered to e0ist at the ver" heart of the famil"1 the child. 2hildhood% Aris ar!ues% is a relativel" new concept that emer!ed around the seventeenth centur"% concomitant with such developments as a decrease in infant mortalit"% chan!es in the 3uropean educational s"stem% increasin! class stratification% and a !radual withdrawal of the famil" from a wider we# of social relations. A Controversial Claim Ariss ar!ument re!ardin! the &discover"' of childhood in the seventeenth centur" is predicated upon another% much/de#ated point1 his assertion that &in medieval societ" the idea of childhood did not e0ist' (145). ,his claim% which has #een #oth enthusiasticall" adopted and cate!oricall" dismissed #" scholars from various disciplines% is more nuanced than it sounds. As .u!h 2unnin!ham points out% the 3n!lish translation of Ariss te0t uses the term &idea' where Aris himself had used the term &sentiment.' ,he difference #etween these two terms is crucial. &Sentiment' carries with it two meanin!s1 &the sense of a feelin! a#out childhood as well as a concept of it' (2unnin!ham 60). Aris did not intend to claim that individual medieval families did not show affection for their children% #ut rather that childhood was not reco!ni7ed and valued as a distinct phase of human e0istence. ,hus% he maintained% there was much less separation #etween adults and children in medieval societ". The Issue of Age ,he !reater purpose of Ariss stud"% then% is to demonstrate how the notion of childhood developed% and what aspects of modernit" contri#uted to its &discover"' as a distinct and special phase in life. .e #e!ins Centuries of Childhood #" ar!uin! that chan!in! notions

of chronolo!ical a!e affected the development of 8estern 3uropean notions of childhood. ,oda"% he writes% we thin) it is ver" normal for a childor for individuals in !eneralto )now his (or her) a!e and date of #irth. 9et% accordin! to Aris% most people livin! #efore the ei!hteenth centur" did not )nowor care to )nowtheir e0act a!es. Aris ar!ues that the &curious passion' for recordin! dates and calculatin! a!es is a recent development% ar!ua#l" correspondin! to the rise of e0act account/)eepin! #" the 2hurch and -tate around the ei!hteenth centur". ,hus% the concept of a!eand% #" e0tension% childhoodwas :uite different% pre/1;00% from what it is toda"1 an individual was deemed an &infant' or a &"outh' or an &old person' not #" virtue of his chronolo!ical a!e #ut #" his ph"sical appearance and ha#its. $urthermore% what was considered &infanc"' or &"outh' in the premodern era was ver" different from what we mi!ht associate with such terms toda"1 in the si0teenth centur"% for e0ample% a child of seven "ears mi!ht still #e considered an &infant' and a man of fort" "ears mi!ht still #e considered a &"outh.' -uch fluid or relativel" indeterminate definitions of &infanc"' and &"outh%' Aris writes% were due not onl" to a different understandin! of chronolo!ical a!e% #ut also to the tendenc"% in the middle a!es% to view children as miniature adults. ,hus% medieval artists depict children as adults &reduced to a smaller scale <=>% without an" other difference in e0pression or features' (66). Aris also contends that it was not until the seventeenth centur" that portraits of children in their :uotidian% domestic conte0t #ecame &numerous and commonplace'a trend that indicates a developin! interest in children as central mem#ers of the nuclear household. Child Mortality 8hat factors #rou!ht a#out this newl" directed attention toward children? Accordin! to Aris% the hi!h mortalit" rate in the premodern era caused parents to steel themselves a!ainst respondin! too emotionall" to infants who mi!ht soon die. +ather than conceivin! of their vulnera#le offsprin! as uni:ue individuals% Aris claims% 3uropeans followed @ontai!ne in assumin! that "oun! children had &neither mental activit" nor reco!ni7a#le #od" shape'( the" were re!arded as merel" &neutral' #ein!s poised precariousl" #etween life and death (69). A stead" decrease in the infant mortalit" rate% however% facilitated an inversel" proportional increase in the attention paid to children and% conse:uentl"% the representations made of them1 when it #ecame more li)el" that children would survive childhood% parents #e!an treatin! them with more interest and affection. Aris supports this claim #" pointin! not onl" to an increase in famil" portraits% in which children fi!ure prominentl"% #ut to a trend in portraits of dead children1 such a trend implies% first% that child mortalit" was #ecomin! more the e0ception than the rule% and second% that children had #ecome important enou!h to their families to #e mourned (A0). A Culture of Childhood

,he rise in the affection and attention paid to children% Aris ar!ues% produced a )ind of culture of childhood. $or e0ample% the seventeenth centur" #rou!ht a#out a newfound interest in childrens words% mispronunciations% and e0pressions% such as the $rench words toutou and dada (AB). @oreover% certain st"les of clothin!% as well as certain !ames and holida"s% #ecame increasin!l" associated with childhood. $or e0ample% while pre/seventeenth centur" children wore clothes that were smaller/scale copies of those of their parents% seventeenth centur" children #e!an to #e dressed in clothes that were sli!htl" different from those of adults. A new fashion was to dress children in ro#es with &ri##ons' that were% in fact% the remnants of sleeves once found fashiona#le #" adult wearers of these ro#es% #ut later deemed outmoded1 thus% in effect% new trends childrens clothin! involved the &hand/me/downs' of adult fashion (56). ,he &hand/me/down' :ualit" of this newl"/developin! culture of childhood could #e found% too% in childrens !ames and pastimes. $or e0ample% toda"% we !enerall" associate fair" tales% part" !ames% and holida"s such as .alloween with children. .owever% in the middle a!es% fair" tales were enCo"ed #" the "oun! and old ali)e% !ames li)e snow#all fi!hts were pla"ed #" entire communities% and adults as well as children went from house to house as)in! for mone" durin! the Dovem#er holida"s. Eraduall"% adults lost interest in these activities% and thus% li)e their castawa" fashions% their !ames and activities #ecame associated onl" with children. Children and Sex Accordin! to Aris% the association of children with certain manners of speech% st"les of clothin!% and activities came a#out relativel" concurrentl" with a developin! notion of childhood as a time of se0ual innocence. 2itin! the diar" of the $rench ro"al ph"sician who cared for the "oun! Fouis G***% he ar!ues that attitudes toward child se0ualit" were much more rela0ed #efore the seventeenth centur". $or e0ample% he notes the followin! episodes involvin! the "oun! Hauphin1 *t was a common Co)e% repeated time and a!ain% to sa" to him1 &@onsieur% "ou havent !ot a coc).' ,hen% &he replied1 I.e"% here it isJlau!hin! and liftin! it up with one fin!er.' ,hese Co)es were not limited to the servants% or to #rainless "ouths% or to women of eas" virtue such as the Kin!s mistress. ,he Lueen% his mother% made the same sort of Co)e1 &,he Lueen% touchin! his coc)% said1 I-on% * am holdin! "our spout.' 3ven more astonishin! is this passa!e1 &.e was undressed and <his sister> too% and the" were placed na)ed in #ed with the Kin!% where the" )issed and twittered and !ave !reat amusement to the Kin!. ,he Kin! as)ed him1 I-on% where is the *nfantas #undle? .e showed it to him% sa"in!1 I,here is no #one in it% Papa. ,hen% as it was sli!htl" distended% he added% I,here is now% there is sometimes.' (101) Aris interprets such scenes as indicative of a !eneral lac) of reserve re!ardin! children and se0ual matters #efore the si0teenth and seventeenth centuries. 9et this casual attitude was not due to an" notion of innate childhood eroticism% #ut rather to a #elief in

childrens a#solute lack of se0ualit". *t was not considered wron! to fondle a child or to spea) e0plicitl" of se0ual matters #efore him simpl" #ecause the child was &#elieved to #e unaware of or indifferent to se0. ,hus !estures and allusions had no meanin! for him( the" #ecame purel" !ratuitous and lost their se0ual si!nificance' (106). ,oward the end of the si0teenth centur" and the #e!innin! of the seventeenth centur"% however% the ima!e of the child shifted from a se0uall" indifferent individual to a se0uall" innocent one whose purit" was constantl" in dan!er of #ein! corrupted #" immoral influences. -uch a shift too) place% Aris ar!ues% predominatel" in response to the rise of the modern educational s"stem. 3ducatorsmost of whom were priests who were Cust as concerned with their pupils salvation as the" were with their ac:uisition of )nowled!eclosel" monitored their students se0ual ha#its and #ehaviors% and too) measures to correct those that the" deemed unhealth". ,he result of such scrutin"% which was su#se:uentl" encoura!ed and disseminated #" hand#oo)s on decorum% was a trend that involved the contradictor" desires to &coddle' the childto protect his innate innocence from evil influencesand to discipline him harshl"% lest he turn to sin #" his own devices. Disciplinary Schooling ,he second section of Ariss stud" pic)s up where the first left offon the su#Cect of education and its influence on emer!in! notions of childhood. Aris #e!ins #" as)in! his reader to reconsider those aspects of education that we% toda"% re!ard as normal. $or e0ample% we e0pect "oun! people to #e!in school at a relativel" earl" a!e% alon! with other children their own a!e. And we assume that% as each "ear passes% students will perform increasin!l" advanced wor). 9et as Aris demonstrates% this approach to education is a relativel" recent one. *n the middle a!es% ver" few people were formall" educated. ,he onl" medieval institution reminiscent of the contemporar" universit" or school was the &cathedral school%' where #o"s and men would stud" to #ecome clerics. .owever% as the num#er of students and masters associated with cathedral schools increased% the institution we now associate with the modern educational s"stem #e!an to evolve. +ather than allowin! students of various a!es to min!le to!ether in the classroom% educators #e!an to divide them up into individual% a!e/#ased classes% a practice that contri#uted to the demarcation of childhood as a specific sta!e of life. -uch separation also #ecame a means of surveillance and control. @asters% assured of their moral superiorit" over their child/char!es% #e!an to closel" supervise students( furthermore% the" held their students responsi#le for informin! on each other in order to secure confessions of wea)ness. 2orporal punishment #ecame an increasin!l" popular means of discipline. 3ventuall"% the da" school evolved into the #oardin! school% where students were su#Cect to o#servation and discipline around the cloc). ,hus% while the medieval school made no distinction #etween the adult and the child% the (proto)modern

school introduced a sharp divide #etween adult and child worlds and promoted the idea that children were su#ordinate #ein!s in need of supervision and discipline. The Rise of the uclear !amily Accordin! to Aris% the ima!es contained in the medieval calendar tell us much a#out the risin! importance of the famil". ver the centuries% the calendar #e!an to include% not onl" men% #ut women% street scenes% and children. $inall"% #" the si0teenth centur"% it #e!an to include depictions of families% and the seventeenth centur" saw a &positive flood' of such pictures (6A9). M" that point% ima!es of families were not onl" contained in calendars% #ut in individual portraits% and the" were displa"ed not onl" in pu#lic spaces such as churches% #ut within private homes. ,hus% Aris concludes that the seventeenth centur"which% si!nificantl" enou!h% is the era in which he ar!ues the concept of childhood first floweredis that point in histor" in which the famil"% as we )now it% first found &full e0pression' (656). ,he rise of the famil"% Aris writes% was the conse:uence of a !eneral movement% in 8estern societ"% from socia#ilit" to privac". Mefore the ei!hteenth centur"% no#le families lived in &!reat houses' in which space was shared #etween children and adults and servants and masters. @oreover% these wealth" families were surrounded #" &concentric circles of relations = <includin!> relatives% friends% clients% protN!Ns% de#tors% etc.' (695). ,his% indeed% was a different )ind of social lifea crowded% pu#lic life that placed more value on the collective than it did on the individual. .owever% #" the ei!hteenth centur"% &the famil" #e!an to hold societ" at a distance% to push it #ac) #e"ond a steadil" e0tendin! 7one of private life' (69B). An ever/!rowin! partition #etween the &inside' of the household and the &outside' of the !reater social world #ecame more distinct% and% !raduall"% the famil" increasin!l" drew into itself. ,his &inward move%' made #" the famil"% Aris ar!ues% was coincident with the increasin! attention #ein! paid to the child. $irst% a wanin! in the practice of apprenticeshipand a concurrent increase in local da"/schoolsmeant that children were more often home with their #irth/families% and therefore increasin!l" su#Cect to special attention and affection. @oreover% the upper/ and middle/classs !rowin! preoccupation with eti:uette #ecame increasin!l" focused on the proper up#rin!in! of children1 parents #e!an to share with schoolmasters and reli!ious officials the responsi#ilit" of appropriatel" moldin! the child. ,he child #ecame the center of the famil"s attentionso much so that% #" the nineteenth centur"% its status within the famil" (and within societ" !enerall") would #ecome almost divine. Criticism of Aris 8hile Ariss Centuries of Childhood is widel" considered a landmar) te0t in famil" histor"% it nevertheless has #een su#Cected to severe criticism. @an" critics of Ariss wor) have reacted especiall" stron!l" to his claim that &in medieval societ" the idea of childhood did not e0ist.' *ndeed% as .u!h 2unnin!ham notes% medievalists &never seem to tire of provin! Aris to #e wron!' and thus &set themselves the tas) of showin! that

the middle a!es did have a concept of childhood% not perhaps the same as in later centuries% #ut a concept nonetheless' (60). -uch o#Cections are in )eepin! with Adrian 8ilsons criti:ue of the &present/centeredness' of Ariss stud". ,o adopt a &present/ centered' approach is to view the past e0clusivel" from the point of view of the present. Ariss mista)e% 8ilson contends% is to ar!ue that medieval societ" had no awareness of "oun! people simpl" #ecause the" lac)ed &our awareness' of what children are li)e and how the" should #e treated (1A6). +eaders have also ar!ued that Ariss &present/centeredness' is characteri7ed #" a de!ree of sentimentalism and nostal!ia. $or e0ample% Ooan Acocella o#serves that the &pictures of the famil" su!!ested #" <Ariss> #oo) = are full of Mrue!eles:ue life and variet"% tum#le and 7est' while the ima!es of modern life su!!ested #" his te0t are comparativel" dar) and severe. *n other words% Aris romantici7es the medieval period as a time of !reater socia#ilit" and o#serves in the modern era onl" ne!ative developments% such as an &o#sessive love' for children and (parado0icall") a simultaneous desire to discipline and punish them. 8hile such a view of the modern era does not initiall" seem &present/ centered'it is% after all% a rather ne!ative view of the presentit nevertheless can #e read as such% insofar as its nostal!ic turn involves a valuation of the past in terms of the present. 9et another maCor criticism of Ariss stud" involves his use of aesthetic artifacts as historical evidence. 8hile Aris does occasionall" ma)e reference to school rosters% laws% and statisticssources that most historians re!ard as relativel" o#Cective and relia#le &hard evidence'the !reat maCorit" of his sources are paintin!s% sculptures% poems% and other wor)s of art. 2ritics view his decision to appeal to these sources as pro#lematic for several reasons. $irst% as 8ilson notes% Aris seems to assume that art directl" reproduces or reflects life% #ut doesnt ta)e into consideration that an artists depiction of a theme ma" #e deepl" su#Cective% or that the content of an aesthetic piece mi!ht tell us more a#out an artistic trend than it does a#out popular notions of childhood. @oreover% as 2unnin!ham notes% Aris cites onl" those aesthetic o#Cects which support his ar!ument concernin! the &discover"' of childhood in the modern era% and seems :uite &unaware of other medieval sources showin! a naturalistic portra"al of childhood' which mi!ht complicate his ar!ument. "hy Study Aris# Eiven the de!ree of criticism leveled at Ariss wor)% one mi!ht wonder whether there is an" value in stud"in! his histor" of childhood. 9et even those who voice stron! reservations re!ardin! Ariss stud" nevertheless recommend it% if onl" #ecause of its status as a foundational wor) in the field of childrens histor". 8hile Ariss Centuries of Childhood was not the first pu#lished histor" of childhoodthat honor #elon!s to Eeor!e .enr" Pa"nes 1916 te0t% he Childhood in Human !rogressit is nevertheless widel" reco!ni7ed as a classic and foundational te0t. ,he de!ree to which Aris has #een cited #" scholars in various academic fieldsand% moreover% the de!ree to which his wor) has inspired similar ar!uments concernin! the &discover"' of childhoodsu!!ests the indeli#le impact he has had on historical studies of childhood and famil" life.

Centuries of Childhood has served as an invalua#le catal"st for rich and endurin! theoretical de#ate. ,herefore% an ac:uaintance with its ar!uments is a prere:uisite for a !reater )nowled!e of the field of the histor" of childhood. Another important aspect of Ariss te0t is its insistence upon the historicall" and culturall" contin!enc" of notions of childhood. 3ven those who reCect Ariss ar!ument re!ardin! the relativel" recent &discover"' of childhood would a!ree that childhood was e0perienced and ima!ined differentl" in the middle a!es than it is toda"that is% that material conditions% power relations% reli!ious #eliefs% and cultural mores have a profound impact on the formation of notions of childhood. ,herefore% one mi!ht credit Aris with furtherin! a notion that we mi!ht ta)e for !ranted toda"1 that childhoodand with it% famil" lifeis not a universal constant or natural cate!or"% #ut rather an ever/shiftin! concept. Recommended Reading Acocella% Ooan. &Fittle People.' he "e# $orker. Au!ust 1B P 45% 40061 16B/1A4. Aris% Philippe. Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. ,rans. +o#ert Maldic). Dew 9or)1 Qinta!e% 1964. 2rawford% -all". Childhood in Anglo%Sa&on England. -troud% RK1 Alan -utton% 1999. 7ment% -teven. Ancestors: he Lo'ing Family in (ld Euro)e. 2am#rid!e% @A1 .arvard RP% 4001. Qann% +ichard. &,he 9outh of 2enturies of 2hildhood.' History and heory: Studies in the !hiloso)hy of History. Qol. 4114 (19B4)1 4;9/49;. 8ilson% Adrian. &,he *nfanc" of ,he .istor" of 2hildhood1 An Appraisal of Philippe Aris.' History and heory: Studies in the !hiloso)hy of History* Qol. 1914 (19B0)1 164/156.