Brutalization?

Marie wrote: As for this nifty 'brutalisation'
argument, I admit I find this
irritating. One could as easily argue that tragedy in
life would
deepen a person's sensibilities and make it easier for
them to feel
for others. Certainly, in Richard's case, the events
that are
supposed to have brutalised him are things he never
saw. He was not
brutalised in the sense a modern child might be
growing up in a
violent atmosphere or watching video nasties all day.
One can no more
assume that the events of his childhood would have
brutalised him
than that the child of a soldier killed on the front
in today's world
would be bound to grow up bad.

****

One reason I want to know more about child-rearing
practices in Richard's time (and before) is that I'm
uncertain how strong or weak family ties were back
then.

It seems to me that bonds couldn't have been very
strong if: 1) child mortality rates were high; 2) the
children were often separated from their parents; and
3)everyone in the family knew the children would be
put out to apprenticeship. It also seems to me that
children had to grow up fast in that social climate.

Power politics and economic advancement seems to have
taken precidence over emotional ties, at least in the
books and articles I've read.

It's unclear to me how deeply the death of a father
and brother they seldom saw, possibly hardly knew
could have affected Edward IV and Richard III. Edward
would have had more opportunity than Richard to know
them before their deaths. I can't say if "brutalized"
or "traumatized" are appropriate descriptions or not.
Perhaps they were indifferent. Perhaps indifference,
lack of feeling accounts for the behavior that's come
down to us.

A.J. Pollard says that medieval people cherished their
children and mourned their deaths as much as modern
people do. But I have my doubts. I've got a lot to
learn about all this, and it will be awhile before
I've made up my mind.

Thanks, Marie, for the Nicholas Orme citation. I've
located a copy, and I'll be reading it soon.

Marion

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

David and Marie wrote: It could be scary stuff to be
told that your beloved Father and
teenage brother were captured, decapitated and their
head pushed onto
spikes which were on Micklebar, a gate tower
overlooking York. Deep
anxiety reactions could follow, lashing out quickly in
self defence,
as Richard did in 1483.

One can no more> assume that the events of his
childhood would have
brutalised him > than that the child of a soldier
killed on the front
in today's world > would be bound to grow up bad.

I never said he was bad. He may've been
psychologically damaged, but
deserves some pity for that.

***

Would Richard and George have been told the full
details of their father's and brother's deaths? Is it
possible the worst of it was held back?

If so, they may have been less deeply affected by the
deaths than Edward IV, who would have known the worst.
Or maybe not.

Didn't their mother send Richard and George to
Burgundy for safety's sake just after their father was
killed? Is it possible that being suddenly sent
overseas would have affected them as deeply as the
loss of a father and brother they may not have known
very well?

I can't say.

I think these questions need to be answered before
anyone can pass judgement on Richard's character.

My problem with the traditional view of Richard is
that it makes him much, much worse than his
contemporaries. I have a lot of doubts about that.

Marion

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:

I'm not sure that Human Nature changes. People are programmed usually
to protect their young for the survival of the species. Even
crocodiles are very gentle with their young.

We do have a reference to Richard & Ann being 'mad with grief' over
the death of their only son in April, 1484. This doesn't suggest
indifference.

Of course political and economic factors do play a role in life, but
probably co-mingled with a natural love for children. It may be that
education outside the home was seen as a useful discipline for
children and important people probably didn't have so much time as
lesser people. There's evidence from Public School practice in the UK
that this does create a sense of loss for children. I saw a programme
devoted to this subject, where ex-Public school boys stated that an
emotional hole - love for one's Mother - was created which was never
filled again, which led to depression and even suicidal tendencies.

Beware of generalization!!!
>
> One reason I want to know more about child-rearing
> practices in Richard's time (and before) is that I'm
> uncertain how strong or weak family ties were back
> then.
>
> It seems to me that bonds couldn't have been very
> strong if: 1) child mortality rates were high; 2) the
> children were often separated from their parents; and
> 3)everyone in the family knew the children would be
> put out to apprenticeship. It also seems to me that
> children had to grow up fast in that social climate.
>
> Power politics and economic advancement seems to have
> taken precidence over emotional ties, at least in the
> books and articles I've read.
>
> It's unclear to me how deeply the death of a father
> and brother they seldom saw, possibly hardly knew
> could have affected Edward IV and Richard III. Edward
> would have had more opportunity than Richard to know
> them before their deaths. I can't say if "brutalized"
> or "traumatized" are appropriate descriptions or not.
> Perhaps they were indifferent. Perhaps indifference,
> lack of feeling accounts for the behavior that's come
> down to us.
>
> A.J. Pollard says that medieval people cherished their
> children and mourned their deaths as much as modern
> people do. But I have my doubts. I've got a lot to
> learn about all this, and it will be awhile before
> I've made up my mind.
>
> Thanks, Marie, for the Nicholas Orme citation. I've
> located a copy, and I'll be reading it soon.
>
> Marion
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

I can't believe that Richard didn't find out sooner or later about
the details of his father & brother's terrible treatment. Adding
deceit to spare his feelings, even though their deaths would be bad
enough,could compound the event & make it seem even worse. A betrayal
of trust can affect people emotionally at any age remember.

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> David and Marie wrote: It could be scary stuff to be
> told that your beloved Father and
> teenage brother were captured, decapitated and their
> head pushed onto
> spikes which were on Micklebar, a gate tower
> overlooking York. Deep
> anxiety reactions could follow, lashing out quickly in
> self defence,
> as Richard did in 1483.
>
> One can no more> assume that the events of his
> childhood would have
> brutalised him > than that the child of a soldier
> killed on the front
> in today's world > would be bound to grow up bad.
>
> I never said he was bad. He may've been
> psychologically damaged, but
> deserves some pity for that.
>
> ***
>
> Would Richard and George have been told the full
> details of their father's and brother's deaths? Is it
> possible the worst of it was held back?
>
> If so, they may have been less deeply affected by the
> deaths than Edward IV, who would have known the worst.
> Or maybe not.
>
> Didn't their mother send Richard and George to
> Burgundy for safety's sake just after their father was
> killed? Is it possible that being suddenly sent
> overseas would have affected them as deeply as the
> loss of a father and brother they may not have known
> very well?
>
> I can't say.
>
> I think these questions need to be answered before
> anyone can pass judgement on Richard's character.
>
> My problem with the traditional view of Richard is
> that it makes him much, much worse than his
> contemporaries. I have a lot of doubts about that.
>
> Marion
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: As for this nifty 'brutalisation'
> argument, I admit I find this
> irritating. One could as easily argue that tragedy in
> life would
> deepen a person's sensibilities and make it easier for
> them to feel
> for others. Certainly, in Richard's case, the events
> that are
> supposed to have brutalised him are things he never
> saw. He was not
> brutalised in the sense a modern child might be
> growing up in a
> violent atmosphere or watching video nasties all day.
> One can no more
> assume that the events of his childhood would have
> brutalised him
> than that the child of a soldier killed on the front
> in today's world
> would be bound to grow up bad.
>
> ****
>
> One reason I want to know more about child-rearing
> practices in Richard's time (and before) is that I'm
> uncertain how strong or weak family ties were back
> then.
>
> It seems to me that bonds couldn't have been very
> strong if: 1) child mortality rates were high; 2) the
> children were often separated from their parents; and
> 3)everyone in the family knew the children would be
> put out to apprenticeship. It also seems to me that
> children had to grow up fast in that social climate.
>
> Power politics and economic advancement seems to have
> taken precidence over emotional ties, at least in the
> books and articles I've read.
>
> It's unclear to me how deeply the death of a father
> and brother they seldom saw, possibly hardly knew
> could have affected Edward IV and Richard III. Edward
> would have had more opportunity than Richard to know
> them before their deaths. I can't say if "brutalized"
> or "traumatized" are appropriate descriptions or not.
> Perhaps they were indifferent. Perhaps indifference,
> lack of feeling accounts for the behavior that's come
> down to us.
>
> A.J. Pollard says that medieval people cherished their
> children and mourned their deaths as much as modern
> people do. But I have my doubts. I've got a lot to
> learn about all this, and it will be awhile before
> I've made up my mind.
>
> Thanks, Marie, for the Nicholas Orme citation. I've
> located a copy, and I'll be reading it soon.
>
> Marion

Hi Marion,

I suspect you may change your mind a bit when you read Orme's book.
Also, I don't know if you have children of your own but it certainly
straightened my head out about these claims that medieval people
didn't care for their children. Some things is just plain biology.
Also, if you fear your children may die is not likely to make them
all the more precious? Only the upper classes would be separated from
their children for long periods. This would have affected their
relationships but not negated them, and is not a particularly
medieval phenomenon.
We know something of Richard's reesponse to the death of his son.
Also, I don't know if you're familiar with the 'Pearl' poem. It's
allegorical, but centres around a father grieving hopelessly for his
little daughter who has died. It belongs to this period.


>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

David wrote: We do have a reference to Richard & Ann
being 'mad with grief' over
the death of their only son in April, 1484. This
doesn't suggest indifference.

Marie wrote: We know something of Richard's reesponse
to the death of his son.

****

True. But was this recorded because it was
exceptional for most parents to show so much grief?

Or was it recorded in order to discredit Richard?
That is, showing so much grief somehow proves how evil
he was? Maybe a failure to resign himself to God's
will or something?

I've thought about this, but I've never decided what
the writer intended for readers to understand by it.
There seems to be a lot of room for misunderstanding
in the 500+ years since it was written.

Marion





__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

I see what you mean. There were political and economic
consequences to Richard's son dying. I think the quotation was from
Croyland, who is fond of considering God's judgement on Richard, who
Croyland thought was less than well-behaved. Being mad with grief
doesn't rule out the love Richard & Ann felt for their son.

The question of indifference to children is not something we can check
in 15th century England. It's too late for a survey. But there are
snatches of concern: Mancini who reports men bursting into tears when
mere mention was made of the princes, because it was feared that
Richard would despatch them.

Shakespeare some 100 years later expresses deep sadness over the
murder of the princes in his play, but maybe for dramatic reasons, but
maybe because he knew it would get an emotional response with the
audience.

Shakespeare seems to have gone very depressed following the death of
his only son: the dark plays begin.

These are only glimpses into a very dark tunnel, but they don't
suggest indifference, which is biologically unnatural. We are
programmed to care for & protect the young.

That's not to say there isn't a minority of exceptions. The abused
who become abusers...

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> David wrote: We do have a reference to Richard & Ann
> being 'mad with grief' over
> the death of their only son in April, 1484. This
> doesn't suggest indifference.
>
> Marie wrote: We know something of Richard's reesponse
> to the death of his son.
>
> ****
>
> True. But was this recorded because it was
> exceptional for most parents to show so much grief?
>
> Or was it recorded in order to discredit Richard?
> That is, showing so much grief somehow proves how evil
> he was? Maybe a failure to resign himself to God's
> will or something?
>
> I've thought about this, but I've never decided what
> the writer intended for readers to understand by it.
> There seems to be a lot of room for misunderstanding
> in the 500+ years since it was written.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> David wrote: We do have a reference to Richard & Ann
> being 'mad with grief' over
> the death of their only son in April, 1484. This
> doesn't suggest indifference.
>
> Marie wrote: We know something of Richard's reesponse
> to the death of his son.
>
> ****
>
> True. But was this recorded because it was
> exceptional for most parents to show so much grief?
>
> Or was it recorded in order to discredit Richard?
> That is, showing so much grief somehow proves how evil
> he was? Maybe a failure to resign himself to God's
> will or something?
>
> I've thought about this, but I've never decided what
> the writer intended for readers to understand by it.
> There seems to be a lot of room for misunderstanding
> in the 500+ years since it was written.
>
> Marion

Hi Marion,

I don't know what old books you've been reading (apart from the
Venetian account), but you do seem reluctant to let go of the notion
that the English had no feelings for their children, or that if they
showed much grief at their deaths others would despise them for it.
Come on, we're reserved but not monsters!
The quotation is from Croyland and the English translation runs: "You
might have seen his father and mother in a state almost bordering on
madness by reason of their sudden grief."
In other words, in response to David as well, he says it was grief
not fear for their position. The latter must surely also have been a
concern, but does not mean they could not also have been genuinely
grief-stricken. As for this being an abnormal response, perhaps a
taster of Nicholas Orme's book. Just a couple of examples. On the
death of Katherine, daughter of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence,
who died in 1257 at the age of three and a half. "She was a disabled
child who could not speak, but Matthew Paris called her 'fair of
face' and told how her mother grieved so much she could find no
comfort in medicine nor human consolation."
And if you protest that that particular mother wasn't English,, how
about this note from an Oxford schoolbook of the 1490s:
"A great while after my brother died, my mother was wont to sit
weeping every day. I trow that there is nobody which would not be
sorry if he had seen her weeping."
I'm afraid I don't have 'Pearl' to hand. Shame!

Marie


>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

At 01:15 AM 3/10/03 -0000, you wrote:

>The question of indifference to children is not something we can check
>in 15th century England. It's too late for a survey. But there are
>snatches of concern: Mancini who reports men bursting into tears when
>mere mention was made of the princes, because it was feared that
>Richard would despatch them.
>

This indifference to children was largely the theory of Philippe Aries, and
has been effectively challenged by Lorraine Attreed and Barbara Hanawalt,
among others.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@... - 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://www.rblanchard.com/ -see also http://www.pacscl.org/
(any opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of any organization of which I am an employee or volunteer)

Hi Marion

With the 'almost mad with grief' observation, I think he was just
recording a possible eye-witness account of what he saw at Nottingham.
It's very similar to how Elizabeth and Tudor reacted the their death
of *their* heir, many years later.

It's another observation - the bit where the boy is said to have died
on the same date as E4 - which I think tries to imply some kind of
Divine Retribution was at work, and which I think is completely
contrived.

Lorraine

<True. But was this recorded because it was
> exceptional for most parents to show so much grief?
>
> Or was it recorded in order to discredit Richard? >

Marie wrote: I don't know what old books you've been
reading (apart from the Venetian account) ..."

****

I have the Venetian quote in two paperbacks:

1 - Everyone a Witness: The Plantagenet Age, by A.F.
Scott. NY : Thomas Y. Crowell, 1976.

2 - The Yorkist Age, by Paul Murray Kendall. NY :
Anchor Books, 1965.

The Yorkist Age has a couple of chapters about
marriage, households, and children. But I want to
read a variety of views. I've gotten some good leads
here on the list, which I'll be following for some
time to come.

I've also read the following books about the 15th
Century:

1 - The Waning of the Middle Ages, by J. Huizinga. NY
: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1954.

2 - England in the Age of Caxton, by Geoffrey Hindley.
NY : St. Martin's Press, 1979.

3 - Fifteenth-century Attitudes; perceptions of
society in late medieval England, ed. by Rosemary
Horrox.

4 - Pleasures and Pastimes in Medieval England, by
Compton Reeves.

That's about it so far.

Marion

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

Marie wrote: "... you do seem reluctant to let go of
the notion that the English had no feelings for their
children or that if they showed much grief at their
deaths others would despise them for it. Come on,
we're reserved but not monsters!"

***

I'm even more reluctant to participate in national
stereotyping. <g>

I plead not guilty to believing that all English
parents are monstrously reserved. I know that the
English don't have a monopoly on unfriendliness to
children.

If you'd like to read about parents from the USA
compared to parents from the Canary Islands, try
Barbara Kingsolver's essay, "Somebody's Baby," in High
Tide in Tucson; essays from now or never. (NY :
HarperCollins, 1995.) She says it much better than I
can.

***

"I don't know whether Marion believes child mortality
rates to have been lower in Italy than they were in
England, just because a Venetian made disparaging
remarks about English attitudes to children."

***

I don't have any information that would support such a
belief. I'm trying to find out if practices such as
sending children into apprenticeship or early
marriages affected mortality rates. I never thought
that the Venetian's remarks had any effect on child
mortality. <g> We'll see what I find out as I
continue reading.

***

"Without the cocktail of antibiotics that were pumped
into him for days on end, I don't think for a minute
we would still have him today."

***

I'm very greatful to Dr. Salk and everyone who helped
him develop the polio vaccine. I'm greatful so many
kids my age were spared the ordeal that earlier
generations suffered. Walking is one of my greatest
pleasures, and I sometimes think how much I could have
missed if the polio vaccine hadn't been available.

Marion

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

Laura wrote: "This indifference to children was
largely the theory of Philippe Aries and has been
effectively challenged by Lorraine Attreed and Barbara
Hanawalt ..."

***

I've located copies of their books, and plan to read
them eventually. So many books, so little time.

Marion

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com