Fascinating, thank you for this. I think the large number of progeny of Edward III, and the resulting Wars of the Roses (which have inspired so much literature, from Shakespeare to Game of Thrones) would be a great example. (Meanwhile I ve just been writing something on Regency romance and primogeniture which is maybe not unrelated either.)
Thanks for this comment. Yes, I was thinking of Austen too, both in terms of the long history of inheritance (as E.J. mentions) and the classic work of H.J. Habakkuk on the evolution of the strict settlement in the 18th century, but also in terms of the brilliant discussion in Alex Woloch's The One vs. the Many. It argues that that novel, and others like it, make a narrative case for individualism and an emerging meritocracy by beginning with many characters' predicaments but progressively narrowing the interest down to one, who, through her merits, will win the ultimate prize. It's a great argument, and I think it's right.
I also think, though, that it is just SO IMPORTANT that this is a comic plot in Austen. And it just feels like it wouldn't be a comic plot prior to the demographic transition. Inheritance is still tricky, money is limited, there are competing demands, not everyone gets everything they want. But it's just not a matter of life and death in the same way. The stakes of multiple births have really changed, I feel, after about 1750.
Not quite how I read it though (sorry I just read Austen not books about her so my thoughts may be naive) but unless at least one Bennet daughter can marry well above her social station then after Dad's death they will be thrown into (genteel) penury. That Mr B makes light of this ("let us flatter ourselves that I may be the survivor") is part of his negligence. Mrs B knows what's what. Okay it's a comedy so we know it's going to be okay (mostly) let other pens dwell on grief and misery but the darkness is still not far below.
Their problem in part was that the property was entailed on the male line, and couldn't be divided up or left to daughters. I guess this was a way of avoiding the downward mobility that was a risk to large aristocratic families as described in the piece. Bad for individuals but preserves the dynasty.
There’s an excellent book on the War of the Roses entitled “The Cousins War” which just about sums it up. It’s an amusing irony that out of all those warring boys, the one who got the prize in the end was a descendant of Edward’s legitimized bastards from his old age (the Beauforts). His son (Henry VIII) killed his remaining cousins. Elite overproduction indeed!
Very interesting piece, thank you. Leads into territory that now has an extensive literature; older studies include a chapter in Peter Laslett's World We Have Lost and Lawrence Stone's Family, Sex and Marriage. A little more recently, David Cressy's Birth, Marriage and Death
Thanks for the comment. Yes, that's exactly what I'm going for--very encouraging that it registers! I describe my current prosopographic project as "Lawrence Stone for Literature," but that description is only actually clarifying for a very tiny subset of people. (Prosopography isn't much better in terms of intelligibility, but I'm not giving up on the term just yet.)
These days it feels like the economists have taken over a lot of the territory that used to belong to social history, though--almost all of the new stuff on the European Marriage Pattern and the birth rate, for instance, is written by them.
How great to run across this Elizabet Ney sculpture, which I had never seen. The artist's house museum in Austin, a kind of bonkers European-castle-via-Hill-Country-limestone, is well worth a visit. Her biography is great, a true iconoclast: part of the influx of German immigrants to Texas in the 1800s, Ney never married and was central to political and social life in Austin.
What lovely, astute writing. I tend to think that even in the current era, low fertility is desirable for a host of reasons. But I love the idea that Shakespeare was reasoning towards this with his plays 500 years ago.
Fascinating, thank you for this. I think the large number of progeny of Edward III, and the resulting Wars of the Roses (which have inspired so much literature, from Shakespeare to Game of Thrones) would be a great example. (Meanwhile I ve just been writing something on Regency romance and primogeniture which is maybe not unrelated either.)
Yes, absolutely! A key example of the phenomenon.
What are you writing on Regency romance and primogeniture? That sounds great.
Posting it Tuesday! Bridgerton, Heyer, Austen, primogeniture and threesomes!
I immediately thought of the predicament of the five-daughter Bennet family in Pride and Prejudice
Thanks for this comment. Yes, I was thinking of Austen too, both in terms of the long history of inheritance (as E.J. mentions) and the classic work of H.J. Habakkuk on the evolution of the strict settlement in the 18th century, but also in terms of the brilliant discussion in Alex Woloch's The One vs. the Many. It argues that that novel, and others like it, make a narrative case for individualism and an emerging meritocracy by beginning with many characters' predicaments but progressively narrowing the interest down to one, who, through her merits, will win the ultimate prize. It's a great argument, and I think it's right.
I also think, though, that it is just SO IMPORTANT that this is a comic plot in Austen. And it just feels like it wouldn't be a comic plot prior to the demographic transition. Inheritance is still tricky, money is limited, there are competing demands, not everyone gets everything they want. But it's just not a matter of life and death in the same way. The stakes of multiple births have really changed, I feel, after about 1750.
Not quite how I read it though (sorry I just read Austen not books about her so my thoughts may be naive) but unless at least one Bennet daughter can marry well above her social station then after Dad's death they will be thrown into (genteel) penury. That Mr B makes light of this ("let us flatter ourselves that I may be the survivor") is part of his negligence. Mrs B knows what's what. Okay it's a comedy so we know it's going to be okay (mostly) let other pens dwell on grief and misery but the darkness is still not far below.
Their problem in part was that the property was entailed on the male line, and couldn't be divided up or left to daughters. I guess this was a way of avoiding the downward mobility that was a risk to large aristocratic families as described in the piece. Bad for individuals but preserves the dynasty.
There’s an excellent book on the War of the Roses entitled “The Cousins War” which just about sums it up. It’s an amusing irony that out of all those warring boys, the one who got the prize in the end was a descendant of Edward’s legitimized bastards from his old age (the Beauforts). His son (Henry VIII) killed his remaining cousins. Elite overproduction indeed!
Henry II as well. Four boys always fighting.
Very interesting piece, thank you. Leads into territory that now has an extensive literature; older studies include a chapter in Peter Laslett's World We Have Lost and Lawrence Stone's Family, Sex and Marriage. A little more recently, David Cressy's Birth, Marriage and Death
Thanks for the comment. Yes, that's exactly what I'm going for--very encouraging that it registers! I describe my current prosopographic project as "Lawrence Stone for Literature," but that description is only actually clarifying for a very tiny subset of people. (Prosopography isn't much better in terms of intelligibility, but I'm not giving up on the term just yet.)
These days it feels like the economists have taken over a lot of the territory that used to belong to social history, though--almost all of the new stuff on the European Marriage Pattern and the birth rate, for instance, is written by them.
How great to run across this Elizabet Ney sculpture, which I had never seen. The artist's house museum in Austin, a kind of bonkers European-castle-via-Hill-Country-limestone, is well worth a visit. Her biography is great, a true iconoclast: part of the influx of German immigrants to Texas in the 1800s, Ney never married and was central to political and social life in Austin.
https://www.austintexas.gov/department/elisabet-ney-museum
How interesting!
What lovely, astute writing. I tend to think that even in the current era, low fertility is desirable for a host of reasons. But I love the idea that Shakespeare was reasoning towards this with his plays 500 years ago.