Fatherhood: A History of Love and Power

by Augustine Sedgewick

What is fatherhood? Where have we inherited our ideas of fatherhood from? What does it mean to be a dad today?

Chronicling the stories and struggles of some of history’s most famous fathers, historian Augustine Sedgewick lays bare how successive generations of men have shaped our understanding of what it means to be a father.

From the Bronze Age fathers whose only use to their families was the food they could hunt, and the moment Aristotle put pen to papyrus and laid the foundations of the patriarchy, to Charles Darwin’s theory of sexual selection and Bob Dylan’s poetic take down of ‘The Man’, Fatherhood is an ambitious exploration of sex, money, power and love, and the story of how men have become fathers and dads in their turn.

An ambitious and thought-provoking history of masculinity and family, Fatherhood dares to offer a more caring and affirmative vision of the roles men currently play in society.
_____

Praise for Augustine Sedgewick’s Coffeeland:
‘Thoroughly engrossing’ - Michael Pollan
‘Wonderful, energizing’ - The Guardian
‘Gripping’ - The Spectator
‘Eye-opening’ - The Economist

Genres: History, Parenting, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Social Science, Childrens, Cultural

320 pages, Hardcover

Published May 27, 2025

Reviews

[Owen Pennock · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ultimately, a disappointment. It is a type of social history I am very interested in, but this book fell short of my expectations. I think the main weakness was the biographic focus of the book, which led to a number of issues.

By focusing on a specific selection of fathers throughout history (rather than a history of the concept itself), I felt the book lacked an analytical "throughline", giving the book a feeling of providing snapshots or cross-sections of fatherhood, rather than a history of its development.

Moreover, focusing on these specific fathers verges on the edge of providing a "great man" theory of fatherhood, with the analysis becoming somewhat top-down at times. While it was clearly not the author's intention to say that these specific fathers are responsible for defining what fatherhood was over Western history, focusing on individual figures kind of gives that impression.

The biographic focus also overshadowed the analytic purpose. The level of biographic detail in each chapter was excessive, and I was constantly asking myself "okay, so what?". The book needed to make a much more concerted effort to tie the specific to the general. This would necessarily require a more sociological historical approach than what was provided.

Good in flashes, but can't recommend.

[FireflySeason2 · Rating 2 out of 5]

I honestly don't know what I was supposed to take away from this. It reads like a collection of mini-biographies of men who coincidentally had children and so fit the book theme. My one take away from the book is that historically "fatherhood" in the western tradition has been a very fluid and regularly changing institution and that's cool but it seems like there should have been a more evocative way to tell that story.

As an aside, there is a chapter in here on Thomas Jefferson and two things...

1. I have never read anything about that man's personal life that made him look like anything other than a colossal assclown.

2. I can't picture Thomas as anything other than tall black man with a hoarse angelic voice and amazing hair. Thank you very much Lin Manuel Miranda

[Jonathan Coleman · Rating 1 out of 5]

At no point in this random collection of biographies does the book get at the promise of diving into the principles of fatherhood. It has more to say about slavery in early America than what makes a father.

[Nadia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Популярний виклад основних уявлень про батьківство (ака татівство) від давніх до сучасних часів на прикладі видатних людей минулого.

[Douglass Morrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read Augustine Sedgewick’s book, 'Fatherhood – A History of Love and Power', hoping to find in his historic tour of fatherhood answers to questions like Who is a good father? and What constitutes optimal fathering?
Sedgewick tells readers, “Our private, individual stories about fathers tend to be full of complication and conflict, sometimes even more than we realize. In contrast, our public shared stories tend to be fantasies, melodramas, and parodies populated by heroes, villains, clowns, and ghosts.”
Importantly, the author reminds his readers that the understanding of biologic fatherhood or 'paternity' has only been established on a scientific basis since the late twentieth century. For most of our history, humans did not know that a single act of sex, whereby a single sperm from the father came to unite with a single egg from the mother, led to the creation of a fetus, which could be birthed as a child, and reared to adulthood. Through much of human history, the biology of maternity and paternity was approached with fantasy and speculation.
Historically, fatherhood has often been wrapped in ideas of power, hierarchy, clan, nationhood, and race that have been spliced together without much understanding of the relevant biology. Fatherhood has become entwined with politics, economics, and religion as well as psychology and sociology. The attempts to rationalize many of these ideas biologically have come from man’s domesticating and observing various animal species. The lack of knowledge has permitted conflicting and unrealistic expectations to develop.
Sedgewick reviews the history of fatherhood as an idea, developed in different eras with specific heroes or spokespersons:
Plato and Aristotle: In ancient Greece, the household included family, slaves, and property – often more slaves and servants than blood relatives. In ancient Greece, up to 20% of pregnancies ended with the death of the mother; doctors and medicine were primitive and of little help. The 'Nicomachean Ethics' was about how to live a good life, how to build a good society, and how to govern a successful state, rather than about rules of behavior and punishments, like the Code of Hammurabi or the Old Testament.
Augustine of Hippo: Sedgewick tells readers that Augustine’s 'Confessions' was about being a father, becoming a Christian, and 'Original Sin'. Many children died when they were very young, and both pagan and Christian societies during Augustine’s era were obsessed with child death, salvation, and immortality. Pagans hung phallic symbols around their children’s necks for protection, and Christians came to hang crosses around their children’s necks for protection. 'Child Baptism' arose largely out of an attempt to protect children. Augustine conceived of 'Original Sin' as a patrilineal legacy of evil – everyone is born with a sin inherited from the human father Adam. The solution was to accept God as the Father, Jesus as the Son, and be born again through baptism – this held out the Promise of Eternal Life. Aristotle had thought fathers were good; Augustine thought fathers were evil, having been corrupted by 'Adam’s Original Sin'.
King Henry VIII: In medieval Europe, 50% of children died by age 5. Henry VIII added 'nobility' to property, seed, and sin, as bases for the concept of fatherhood - Aristotle’s biology was followed by Augustine’s theology, and Henry VIII’s nobility. The word King has similar roots to kin, son of the family. Two important concepts from this era were: Primogeniture - the first-born child inherits wealth and/ or titles; and male preference primogeniture – the first-born male inherits as in Kingship. This was stopped in the English Monarchy in 2011 – 2013. It still exists for some English titles.
Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson’s motto was “He who gives life gives liberty”. To father was to be free. Sedgewick tells readers that Jefferson’s philosophy was “… inspired by the parenting advice and political philosophy of John Locke, they relied on newly flexible ideas of fatherhood to create and govern the new United States.”
“The Puritans migrated across the Atlantic... "to protect their children from the moral corruption they perceived all around them in England”. “In the seventeenth century, the Puritans wrote more manuals on child-rearing than any sect in the wider European world, and all were addressed to fathers.” Thomas Hobbes called 'Patriarchy': “the right of domination called generation”.
John Locke argued that the popular rationales for patriarchy and monarchy rested on a misunderstanding of the roles of fathers and families… Like Locke, Jefferson believed in the importance of education and often conflated it with fatherhood. Jefferson had some inconsistent ideas about human rights and fatherhood among white people versus native Americans and blacks, especially black slaves.
Jefferson sired children with his slave, Sally Hemings, starting when she was 14 years old (Paris). Had Sally Hemings remained in France, she and her offspring would have been ‘free’. Jefferson promised her that if she returned to Virginia with him, he would grant her freedom. He reneged.
'Partus sequitur ventrum' – the child follows the womb – is a stunning contrast to patrilineal descent - ‘you are what your father was’. To assure that all offspring of slaves were slaves, 'matrilineal descent' was preferred - ‘you are what your mother was’. The implications of matrilineal descent for slaves included the fact that all children born of a slave mother became slaves regardless of whether the father was the white slaveowner; this institutionalized slave rape by white men. Conversely, the irrational fear of a black man with a white woman, derived in part from matrilineal descent, or 'partus sequitur ventrum', whereby the children would theoretically be free. This fear (conscious or subconscious) lay behind many lynchings.
Emerson and Thoreau: Before 1820, 75% of American labor was in farming. By 1860, steamships and railroads were changing the landscape, and factories were part of industrialization. Traditionally, fathers passed property, money, and/ or a craft or skill on to their sons. The notion of Provider or 'breadwinner' became an important part of 'fatherhood', as industrialization replaced farming as the main way to make a living. Both Emerson and Thoreau wished to be economically free to pursue their dreams of writing.
Emerson and Thoreau forged the philosophy of individualism in their books 'Self-Reliance', 'Civil Disobedience', and 'Walden'. Sedgewick tells us that Emerson’s and Thoreau’s greatest obstacles to their dreams were their fathers… Neither father provided property or inheritance, while both had insisted on deference to paternal authority – all of the disadvantages, with none of the advantages. Emerson wrote in 'Self-Reliance': “I shun my father and mother and brother and wife when my genius calls me.” And in 'Nature': “Our age is retrospective… It builds sepulchres of the fathers… Why should we not enjoy an original relation to the universe?”
During this era, Alexis de Tocqueville coined the term individualism and described American family units and associations as alternative hierarchies or sources of order, to royalty, aristocracy, and guilds. Jean Jacque Rousseau, author of 'Emile' and 'On Education', wrote of philosophy while conflating fatherhood, raising a child, and education. Ironically, Rousseau did not raise any of his six children; rather, he took them all to an orphanage instead!
Charles Darwin: Charles Darwin’s father, Robert, was a physician. Charles wanted his father’s approval desperately, and according to Sedgewick, he didn’t get it. Charles tried medical school and couldn’t hack it because of a fear of blood and a distaste for the anatomy lab and dissections. Charles graduated from Cambridge and went on a five-year cruise of South America on HMS Beagle (1831-1836); the purpose of the trip was to make maps and locate ports for the expansion of the British Empire.
Thomas Malthus had argued in his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population that the world’s resources were finite, and the growing world population would likely run out of food, water, and other necessities. The main method of population control was abstinence. In 1837-1838, when Emerson wrote' Self-Reliance', Darwin was developing the idea of a ‘struggle for existence’ or ‘constant competitive struggle for survival’ among animals and man.
Darwin published 'On The Origin of Species' in 1859 on the core ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest. 'On Origin of Species' made two points clear: it was very rare for parents to generate an enduring legacy, extinction of a trait was more likely; and death was beneficial and necessary in the big picture of corporeal and mental endowments progressing, or evolving, towards perfection. It is important to recall that Darwin disputed the notion that different races of humans were different species – humans of all races can interbreed, so he was writing of human species evolution, not the evolution of subgroups.
'The Descent of Man' was Darwin’s most ambitious book. It concluded that Man is an animal like all other animals. It was consistent with the genetic discoveries involving subcellular material (DNA) from both mother and father, neither simply 'patrilineal' nor simply 'matrilineal'.
Sigmund Freud: Neurasthenia and hysteria were epidemic during Victorian times. Freud drew attention to the possibility of a sexual origin of neuroses, particularly after having experienced an adverse childhood event. 'The Interpretation of Dreams' (1899), included Freud’s ideas about the 'Oedipus complex' – Freud acknowledged that he had begun work on the book to try to come to terms with the death of his father, which he called “the most important event, the most poignant loss, of a man’s life.” Freud extended the 'Oedipus complex' into his conception of the superego that ruled over the id and ego, and developed around age 5, in response to paternal approval and punishment.
Alfred Adler downplayed the importance of the 'Oedipus complex', preferring to call it the ‘inferiority complex’. Carl Jung also downplayed the 'Oedipus myth' and advised Freud to stop 'playing father to his pupils'. Erik Erikson changed the emphasis from staged sexual development to psychosocial development. Erikson ranked Freud’s contributions, with those of Copernicus (the sun, not the earth, is the center of orbits), and Darwin (man is an animal like all the others – evolution). Freud’s contributions included the insights that humans have unconscious mental activity, and that activity has individual and collective elements.
In 'Totem and Taboo', Freud described a genealogy of murderers (his bloody prehistory of fathers and sons) – Fathers sent their children off to die, and children learned to kill. Sedgewick tells us, “From a child’s perspective, Sigmund Freud’s theories made it natural, even healthy, to despise your father. From a father’s perspective, Freud made it normal, even good, to be hated, for that meant your children were growing up and coming into their own. The first view empowers rebellion while the second justifies patriarchal control, framing it as the regular course of family business. Most often, this conflict between parents and children takes place on unequal ground where parents hold all of the advantages except time.”
Bob Dylan: Bob Dylan’s father, Abraham Zimmerman, a post-Emerson American, provided for his son: food, clothing, shelter, and education. Akin to Freud, Bobby Zimmerman hated his father, ran from him, changed his name to Bob Dylan, and became famous as a rebel, poet-songwriter. Bobby Zimmerman saw his father as a tyrant who tore down his James Dean posters. In his song, ‘Living with Lies’, Bob Dylan wrote of being homeless after he had been brought up in a safe and average home, going to average schools, and having lots of money spent on his whims. It is an understatement to consider him ungrateful. Bob Dylan had said, “I don’t know my parents and my parents don’t know me.” (his father, Abe, was present when he legally changed his name) Dylan is an example of the concept of 'Filiarchy' – everything is for the children. It contributes to unrealistic expectations of fatherhood: ‘With the right care at home, you could make a doctor or a lawyer; with the wrong care at home, you could make a juvenile delinquent’ – a mantra that relieves children of responsibility for their behavior.
Dylan appealed to the Weather Underground, a far-left group that rejected monogamy and conventional domesticity as part of their opposition to patriarchy, war, and capitalism. Dylan longed for marriage and children, but he loathed responsibility, especially for dependents.
In his conclusion, Sedgewick recognizes that the problem he set out to define was too large. When he told his first-grade son that he was writing a book about Fatherhood, his son asked, ‘What is fatherhood?’ His son (perhaps in resonance with some readers) was not quite ready for Aristotle, Saint Thomas, Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Sigmund Freud, or Bob Dylan to help figure it out. So Sedgewick proposed, “Let’s make the question much smaller”. Fathers are: Funny (perhaps fun or even kind) and Huggy (dare we say, caring). I am struck that this definition of fatherhood is based upon paternal choices of behavior, choices that are not necessarily inspired or commanded. Kindness and caring do require that a father act responsibly.
'Fatherhood – A History of Love and Power' is an interesting survey with something for readers with many different points of view. I doubt that it will satisfy many dogmatic religious, philosophic, or political zealots who try to hold either extreme patriarchal or matriarchal sensitivities. I think the observations regarding how many competing concepts have been subsumed under fatherhood during different eras, coupled with the emphasis on how recently humans have learned much of the relevant biology, make it worth a read, or even a study. The continuous display of 'failing fathers' throughout the book, starting with Erik Erikson and Norman Rockwell in the prologue, lends support to the idea that 'there are no perfect fathers' (or perfect mothers, I would add). I find that reassuring. I have come to view my father, mother, stepmother, and stepfather as 'imperfect heroes'.

[Alex Florescu · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ambitious, but unfortunately falls short

[Edward Tucker · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lacking world view

I enjoyed the book, but it reflects Western European fathers without examining the role of fatherhood in other cultures and times. Closer to biographical sketches of key historical figures than a historical look at fatherhood.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I went into reading this without any expectations. It was an impulse pick up at the library. What this isn’t is a comprehensive history of the institution of fatherhood. As others have said, the author does meander at times and throws out various historical facts and information that don’t seem to directly tie into the main focus of the book. I still really enjoyed it with the exception of the chapters on Darwin and Freud. I felt like the intro, conclusion, and chapters on Plato, Aristotle, and St. Augustine were the strongest points in the book.

I like the idea of examining fatherhood through these key figures, but it is obviously a limited perspective. The individuals chosen are all white, male, and prosperous within the Western European and American traditions. I’d love a broader history of how the institution looks across cultures and ethnic groups, as well as how women relate to it.

Overall, still a very enjoyable read and a decent survey of the individuals covered for anyone who’s interested. At the very least, as Sedgewick notes in the intro and conclusion, it provides good perspective about how the contemporary lamentations about fathers and fatherhood are nothing new. Fatherhood and patriarchy have always relied on dehumanizing myths that put some men on a pedestal at the expense of everyone else.

[Neil Kaarsemaker · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book came recommended by The Economist as one of their picks of for recently released books. Normally, I find The Economist a reliable source for stimulating reading material. Not in this case. As the the other ratings suggest, this is not an inspiring piece. Not for general consumption, anyways. The author takes a "deep dive" into history and philosophy to dissect the roots of the roles of fatherhood. As can be expected, he finds plenty of rot in the basement of our experience with fathers and make role models in our history. Seems to my mind, that is what he was looking for. Like revisionist historians, when you place our current lenses of right and wrong and good and evil to historical narrative, you come up with problematic issues. There is no doubt that societies that do not respect the roles of mothers and fathers and extended family to be the guardians and custodians of the next generation tend to flounder and struggle. There is another story to be told regarding families. That of traditions of love, respect and nurture combined with responsibility taught and caught. This generally produces thriving, confident individual who learn to "pass the torch."

[Cailey · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating look at how fatherhood has been defined and how it’s shifted throughout history. The book focuses on famous men, from Plato and Aristotle all the way to Bob Dylan. It talks about not only each man’s perspective of being a father, but also the cultural elements that helped define fatherhood during their time.

It was really interesting seeing how each section built upon the prior. I was able to get a great picture of how different ideals and expectations changed. Overall Fatherhood was very engaging and sparked a lot of great conversations for me. I also appreciated the author including their perspective on fatherhood; it was very touching.

I received a copy of this book from a GoodReads giveaway.

[Jonathan Mckay · Rating 3 out of 5]

Absentee Parenting

For a book about fatherhood, there’s a surprising lack of fathers. Darwin shuffles through as the sole emotional protagonist—grieving, pacing, detached—while the rest are mostly historical men who happened to have children. Those who shaped the world often failed their families. The book catalogs legacy, not intimacy.

Structures abound—patriarchy, empire, labor—but emotion gets footnoted. My takeaway is that when it comes to being a father, trying is more than half the battle. Then get good at being funny and good at hugging.

⸻

Quotes

“The journey of the Beagle was for knowledge, but knowledge was for empire and empire was for money.”

“The role of a dad is to be funny and good at hugging.”

[kylie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, a fascinating view into the intimate lives of historic men as fathers, just not the 2D figures from our textbooks.

There were some tangents that I found myself glazing over during, but for the most part it felt comprehensive and engaging.

I don't get to trash talk Freud enough, and this may even be a lukewarm take (idk, I didn't major in psych), but I've always suspected that he assumed his neuroses applied to everyone and were, in fact, maybe just him. Like we all have our things, I'm not suggesting his theories apply to absolutely no one, but probably A LOT less applicable than he thought.

Anyway, **I received my copy from Netgalley.

[Josh Lambie]

This book, a fascinating look into paternal attitudes, philosophies, and behaviors, spans from the inception of fatherhood in primitive man to nineteenth-century natural sciences, and ends with none other than America's sweetheart: Bob Dylan. Sigmund Freud, Thomas Jefferson, Plato and Aristotle, Alexander the Great, and Jesus Christ himself--oh, my!--await your listening ears (eyes?) in this wonderful look into the history of fatherhood.

[Geoffrey Wong · Rating 3 out of 5]

ultimately not what I expected, there's plenty of research and talked about fatherhood of famous and infamous people. how being a father, or their own father change the way they lived their lives.
I was looking for more like a historic trend of say fatherhood has changed by scriptures, culture and society. There are plenty to reflect on, but ultimately not the book that I was looking for.

[Rob Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Per the author, the goal of the book is to find “a deeper and more humane understanding of the role of men in the world.”

Ultimately, the author seems to conclude that all the stories about men, love, and power collapse and leave us searching for new stories.

Pursuant to the author’s promise, I went in with a particular expectation. Sadly disappointed. Nothing new under the Sun.

[Sharath Reddy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting to read about famous people as fathers. The generalizations are not supported (even though they are likely broadly accurate in each time period). The people profiled are also quite unique; it is hard to believe they are representative. There are also much more mundane answers to many of the problems raised.

[Tanner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Audiobook. More of a social biography on selected key characters and their fatherhood than the more direct treatise on fatherhood I expected. Lots of cool nuggets but made it a little hard to follow. I would love to know more about what the every day father lived like throughout history.

[Mia · Rating 3 out of 5]

I mostly enjoyed the chapters on Henry VIII, Freud and Bob Dylan. It was an interesting perspective, and I learnt that Virginia was named after Elizabeth I, but apart from that it didn’t grab me as much as I thought it would.

[Ron · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lacks a coherent argument. If there’s one big idea, it’s that our ideas of fatherhood are based on our own experiences - slightly banal.

Poor understanding of Augustine and original sin.

Chapters on Darwin and Freud were better than the previous ones.

[Vikki · Rating 3 out of 5]

The stories of some fathers from history, but it felt like it was missing some overarching narrative. The more personal conclusion chapter was better, but it would have been more interesting if that narrative had been woven through the rest of the book.

[Aaron · Rating 2 out of 5]

A series of mini biographies with cherry picked antidotes from historical figures, most of whom were atrocious fathers. I walked away from this not really understanding what the key messages are or lessons learned.

[Sin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book about fathers through the ages.

[Jess · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hadn't realized it was possible to make me love the Trancendentalists more or find Bob Dylan more irritating.

[Tena · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting book. Not at all what you think it will be based on the title and subtitle.

[Patrick Hurley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting but I was hoping for more. It went too micro on several people, wish it was wider on the topic of fatherhood. The Greeks like to talk about cum an awful lot.

[Emily Posthumus · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very odd series of biographies that are not very critical at all, no real theories or opinions on social constructs of fatherhood, and focuses only on Western Europe and America.

[Jordi Jorda · Rating 5 out of 5]

very readable, very good

[Louis R · Rating 2 out of 5]

More a history than philosophical/inspirational reads about what a father should be. Some chosen characters were…. Frankly kind of bad fathers, so a surprising choice.

[Kevin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Meandering, unfocused, and disjointed.

[Jacob Dickey · Rating 4 out of 5]

History of fatherhood! Very cool and informative read. Felt like a touch misandrist at times, but I’m probably biased. Many cool perspectives on why/what is fatherhood! Wholesome ending 🥹