What do you think?
Rate this book
The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe
Around 300 A.D. European patterns of marriage and kinship were turned on their head. What had previously been the norm - marriage to close kin - became the new taboo. The same applied to adoption, the obligation of a man to marry his brother's widow and a number of other central practices. With these changes Christian Europe broke radically from its own past and established practices which diverged markedly from those of the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. In this highly original and far-reaching work Jack Goody argues that from the fourth century there developed in the northern Mediterranean a distinctive but not undifferentiated kinship system, whose growth can be attributed to the role of the Church in acquiring property formerly held by domestic groups. He suggests that the early Church, faced with the need to provide for people who had left their kin to devote themselves to the life of the Church, regulated the rules of marriage so that wealth could be channelled away from the family and into the Church. Thus the Church became an 'interitor', acquiring vast tracts of property through the alienation of familial rights. At the same time, the structure of domestic life was changed dramatically, the Church placing more emphasis on individual wishes, on conjugality, and on spiritual rather than natural kinship. Tracing the consequences of this change through to the present day, Jack Goody challenges some fundamental assumptions about the making of western society, and provides an alternative focus for future study of the European family, kinship structures and marriage patterns. The questions he raises will provoke much interest and discussion amongst anthropologists, sociologists and historians.
320 pages, Paperback
First published July 7, 1983
4 people are currently reading
160 people want to read
About the author
Jack Goody
94 books65 followersSir John (Jack) Rankine Goody (born 27 July 1919) is a British social anthropologist. He has been a prominent teacher at Cambridge University, he was elected Fellow of the British Academy in 1976,[1] and he is an associate of the US National Academy of Sciences. Among his main publications are Death, property and the ancestors (1962), The myth of the Bagre (1972) and The domestication of the savage mind.
Jack Goody explained social structure and social change primarily in terms of three major factors. The first was the development of intensive forms of agriculture that allowed for the accumulation of surplus – surplus explained many aspects of cultural practice from marriage to funerals as well as the great divide between African and Eurasian societies. Second, he explained social change in terms of urbanization and growth of bureaucratic institutions that modified or overrode traditional forms of social organization, such as family or tribe, identifying civilization as “the culture of cities”. And third, he attached great weight to the technologies of communication as instruments of psychological and social change. He associated the beginnings of writing with the task of managing surplus and, in an important paper with Ian Watt (Goody and Watt, 1963), he advanced the argument that the rise of science and philosophy in classical Greece depended importantly on their invention of an efficient writing system, the alphabet. Because these factors could be applied to either to any contemporary social system or to systematic changes over time, his work is equally relevant to many disciplines.
Jack Goody explained social structure and social change primarily in terms of three major factors. The first was the development of intensive forms of agriculture that allowed for the accumulation of surplus – surplus explained many aspects of cultural practice from marriage to funerals as well as the great divide between African and Eurasian societies. Second, he explained social change in terms of urbanization and growth of bureaucratic institutions that modified or overrode traditional forms of social organization, such as family or tribe, identifying civilization as “the culture of cities”. And third, he attached great weight to the technologies of communication as instruments of psychological and social change. He associated the beginnings of writing with the task of managing surplus and, in an important paper with Ian Watt (Goody and Watt, 1963), he advanced the argument that the rise of science and philosophy in classical Greece depended importantly on their invention of an efficient writing system, the alphabet. Because these factors could be applied to either to any contemporary social system or to systematic changes over time, his work is equally relevant to many disciplines.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 27, 2019
A classic study of the evolution/revolution of marriage of Catholic Europe for two thousand years. Not an easy read. (In Finnish: https://kansankokonaisuus.blogspot.co...)
Church illegitimatized many old institutions like adoption (of kins), marriage of brothers widow, marriages with cousins or second/third/fourth cousins, which had been used to secure the inheritance of the farms and other property to members of the kin / extended family. It was no more possible to get a divorce and remarry when the pair was childless - or take a concubine or a second legal wife to secure children. The concept of illegitimate children was created - children born outside the monogamous marriage could not inherit. The number of childless pairs and widows increased and the farms were often inherited by the church. Inheritance to others than the direct legitimate children was discouraged.
The role of the clan or kin or extended family decreased strongly. Economically motivated marriages were strongly discouraged - the consent and love of the marring pair was made central and only legal (non-sinful) reason for marriage - parents role in choosing the partner heavily decreased. The role of the atomic individual and the atomic family increased and the role of kin decreased.
The important role of the kin was replaced by the church and the spiritual brothers and sisters in Jesus. Rich childless widows, for example, often used their money to start monasteries.
The status of women and their possibility to own property was strengthened in the hope that they would more easily leave the property to the church.
Reformation nullified many of the rules of the Catholic Church.
PS. How the Church tried in all ways to diminish the role of the kin and clan and increase the role of itslef reminds me of how the welfare state has diminished the role of the family in modern Europe. It is the welfare state who secures the welfare e.g. of the old parents and not the children. It has even been discussed that maybe the tax on inheritance should be 100% so that all people would have as equal start as possible. And the right to inheritance would then be monopolized by the new church - the welfare state.
Church illegitimatized many old institutions like adoption (of kins), marriage of brothers widow, marriages with cousins or second/third/fourth cousins, which had been used to secure the inheritance of the farms and other property to members of the kin / extended family. It was no more possible to get a divorce and remarry when the pair was childless - or take a concubine or a second legal wife to secure children. The concept of illegitimate children was created - children born outside the monogamous marriage could not inherit. The number of childless pairs and widows increased and the farms were often inherited by the church. Inheritance to others than the direct legitimate children was discouraged.
The role of the clan or kin or extended family decreased strongly. Economically motivated marriages were strongly discouraged - the consent and love of the marring pair was made central and only legal (non-sinful) reason for marriage - parents role in choosing the partner heavily decreased. The role of the atomic individual and the atomic family increased and the role of kin decreased.
The important role of the kin was replaced by the church and the spiritual brothers and sisters in Jesus. Rich childless widows, for example, often used their money to start monasteries.
The status of women and their possibility to own property was strengthened in the hope that they would more easily leave the property to the church.
Reformation nullified many of the rules of the Catholic Church.
PS. How the Church tried in all ways to diminish the role of the kin and clan and increase the role of itslef reminds me of how the welfare state has diminished the role of the family in modern Europe. It is the welfare state who secures the welfare e.g. of the old parents and not the children. It has even been discussed that maybe the tax on inheritance should be 100% so that all people would have as equal start as possible. And the right to inheritance would then be monopolized by the new church - the welfare state.
March 3, 2020
This is a short but dense and often dry book that looks at how the Church influenced family, marriage, and kin structures in Europe. It does a good job of tracing some important threads through the centuries and is quite convincing of its point.
In general the thesis is that before the 3rd and 4th centuries, there wasnt the "Oriental" and "European" dichotomy of family structures that have been talked about. The Mediterranean was essentially one cultural space with North Africa and southern Europe very similar to one another. In fact most of the Roman empire had family structures similar to elsewhere on the planet. Namely, large kin groups that were held together by inheritance that kept property inside the kin group. Then, around Pope Gregory and Augustine, the Church made several drastic changes and decrees that changed this forever.
Specifically, they eliminated all the strategies that kin groups typically use to pass property down inside the kin group and in cases of a lack of male heirs. These strategies are close marriages (marriages between cousins), and to produce an heir: divorce and remarriage, concubinage (taking on more than one wife), remarriage of widows (sometimes automatically to the brother of the husband, called the levirate), and adoption. ALL of these strategies were outlawed with dubious moral and scriptural support. All of them were very common practice in Christian lands before the decrees and significant pushback was the norm for centuries. Yet the Church held firm and was adamant in enforcement.
Why? When there was no male heir and less pressure to keep property in the hands of the kin group the property would go to the Church. Within a few centuries the Church became the biggest landholder in nearly every country where these laws were in place and rivalled kings for power. There was a pushback by the kings and nobles eventually because it seemed like the Church would own all the land at some point at the rate it was going, but the inheritance and marriage rules which caused this didn't change. Instead there developed a steady state where as much property was going into the church as was being taken back or taken over by the state, but the Church remained a huge wealthy landowner. In no other place in the world were these specific legal and moral injunctions enforced, so Europe developed a very distinct individualized culture that shed off the kin group and atomized individuals and the nuclear family. The European late marriage model was also allowed to develop without the kin group authorities to block it.
The degrees of separation allowed for two people to get married were so large that it was almost impossible to be "legally" married under Church doctrine unless you left your village or paid for an exemption (another way to extort money, especially nobles). Over time the number of allowable degrees was reduced slightly but it was still heavily enforced by the Church. The Church also insisted on being a part of the marriage and officiating it, which was new and allowed them to police these requirements.
Overall it shows how Europe uniquely brushed off kin networks and became an individualist society.
Quotes:
P84: The thrust of the fourth century decrees and legislation lay in another direction, one that changed the patterns of marriage in the whole area under Christian domination, but which had little or no relation to the doctrines of the faith, much less to its scriptures. In the main these patterns can hardly be regarded as an *ethical* advance on the rules and customs of earlier societies; some might wish to argue against concubinage on universal ethical principals but the same can hardly be done for the marriage of cousins or the adoption of children. Their one common feature was the control they gave over the strategies of heirship, and in particular the control over close marriages, those between consanguinal, a final and spiritual kin.
P94: In earlier Mediterranean societies the state of heirlessness could be remedied by the use of one of the widespread strategies of heirship current in the region, namely adoption, concubinage, plural marriage, widow remarriage (including the levirate). It does not seem accidental that the Church appears to have condemned the very practices that would have deprived it of property. For the accumulation of property was essential so that it could assume responsibility for the maintenance of those widows and orphans who, under the pre-existing arrangements, would have been cared for by their kin. If a widow was to remarry rather than enter a nunnery, then the property would come under the control of the new partnership. If an individual or couple adopted a child, they provided themselves an heir for their goods. So too, in a less direct fashion, does a man who takes a second wife or a concubine if his first wife is barren. Is it by chance that the Church forbade such strategies of continuity, that it set limits to the efficacy of kinship ties outside the elementary family in matters of property? Even within the immediate conjugal family, while the church often protected relationships, it could also threaten them. The widowed daughter was encouraged by St. Jerome to leave money to the church against her father's wishes. Such a policy was not only destructive of the idea of "family property", it also encouraged filial disobedience. Or to phrase the trend in another way, it promoted "freedom" and "individualism" at the same time as strengthening the independence of women.
P142: While moral and ethical considerations are relevant to this change, perhaps a yet more important fact lay in the growth of both Church and State, in their bureaucratic and property holding forms, which led to a weakening, often deliberate, of groups and ranges of kin. In the process the molecule of kinship became reduced to its constituent atoms, the individual whose consent- to marriage, to alienation, and to many other activities - could not be challenged by recalcitrant or powerful relatives.
In general the thesis is that before the 3rd and 4th centuries, there wasnt the "Oriental" and "European" dichotomy of family structures that have been talked about. The Mediterranean was essentially one cultural space with North Africa and southern Europe very similar to one another. In fact most of the Roman empire had family structures similar to elsewhere on the planet. Namely, large kin groups that were held together by inheritance that kept property inside the kin group. Then, around Pope Gregory and Augustine, the Church made several drastic changes and decrees that changed this forever.
Specifically, they eliminated all the strategies that kin groups typically use to pass property down inside the kin group and in cases of a lack of male heirs. These strategies are close marriages (marriages between cousins), and to produce an heir: divorce and remarriage, concubinage (taking on more than one wife), remarriage of widows (sometimes automatically to the brother of the husband, called the levirate), and adoption. ALL of these strategies were outlawed with dubious moral and scriptural support. All of them were very common practice in Christian lands before the decrees and significant pushback was the norm for centuries. Yet the Church held firm and was adamant in enforcement.
Why? When there was no male heir and less pressure to keep property in the hands of the kin group the property would go to the Church. Within a few centuries the Church became the biggest landholder in nearly every country where these laws were in place and rivalled kings for power. There was a pushback by the kings and nobles eventually because it seemed like the Church would own all the land at some point at the rate it was going, but the inheritance and marriage rules which caused this didn't change. Instead there developed a steady state where as much property was going into the church as was being taken back or taken over by the state, but the Church remained a huge wealthy landowner. In no other place in the world were these specific legal and moral injunctions enforced, so Europe developed a very distinct individualized culture that shed off the kin group and atomized individuals and the nuclear family. The European late marriage model was also allowed to develop without the kin group authorities to block it.
The degrees of separation allowed for two people to get married were so large that it was almost impossible to be "legally" married under Church doctrine unless you left your village or paid for an exemption (another way to extort money, especially nobles). Over time the number of allowable degrees was reduced slightly but it was still heavily enforced by the Church. The Church also insisted on being a part of the marriage and officiating it, which was new and allowed them to police these requirements.
Overall it shows how Europe uniquely brushed off kin networks and became an individualist society.
Quotes:
P84: The thrust of the fourth century decrees and legislation lay in another direction, one that changed the patterns of marriage in the whole area under Christian domination, but which had little or no relation to the doctrines of the faith, much less to its scriptures. In the main these patterns can hardly be regarded as an *ethical* advance on the rules and customs of earlier societies; some might wish to argue against concubinage on universal ethical principals but the same can hardly be done for the marriage of cousins or the adoption of children. Their one common feature was the control they gave over the strategies of heirship, and in particular the control over close marriages, those between consanguinal, a final and spiritual kin.
P94: In earlier Mediterranean societies the state of heirlessness could be remedied by the use of one of the widespread strategies of heirship current in the region, namely adoption, concubinage, plural marriage, widow remarriage (including the levirate). It does not seem accidental that the Church appears to have condemned the very practices that would have deprived it of property. For the accumulation of property was essential so that it could assume responsibility for the maintenance of those widows and orphans who, under the pre-existing arrangements, would have been cared for by their kin. If a widow was to remarry rather than enter a nunnery, then the property would come under the control of the new partnership. If an individual or couple adopted a child, they provided themselves an heir for their goods. So too, in a less direct fashion, does a man who takes a second wife or a concubine if his first wife is barren. Is it by chance that the Church forbade such strategies of continuity, that it set limits to the efficacy of kinship ties outside the elementary family in matters of property? Even within the immediate conjugal family, while the church often protected relationships, it could also threaten them. The widowed daughter was encouraged by St. Jerome to leave money to the church against her father's wishes. Such a policy was not only destructive of the idea of "family property", it also encouraged filial disobedience. Or to phrase the trend in another way, it promoted "freedom" and "individualism" at the same time as strengthening the independence of women.
P142: While moral and ethical considerations are relevant to this change, perhaps a yet more important fact lay in the growth of both Church and State, in their bureaucratic and property holding forms, which led to a weakening, often deliberate, of groups and ranges of kin. In the process the molecule of kinship became reduced to its constituent atoms, the individual whose consent- to marriage, to alienation, and to many other activities - could not be challenged by recalcitrant or powerful relatives.
May 21, 2025
estava farta de ouvir falar da igreja
Read
November 20, 2022Comment:
Goody in this book points out that the family structures of the old Roman world (Republic/Empire) were much more like the rest of the Mediterranean than they were like the Germanic tribes with their insistent and strict taboos on marriage between cousins, and besides that the Germanic tribes inheritance rules were quite unique compared to the rest of the ancient world. It was the legal structures (written laws) influenced by these barbarians that the early Church first introduced that put Europe on its unique path to its individualist family structures. This decision by the Church seems to have been based on a purely monetary decision: "How could the Church maximize the money it receives from estates?" is the question they asked. The answer is preferring the individual property owners whims (his willingness to disperse his property to the Church) to the interest of his family.
...And thus European individualism is born.
Goody in this book points out that the family structures of the old Roman world (Republic/Empire) were much more like the rest of the Mediterranean than they were like the Germanic tribes with their insistent and strict taboos on marriage between cousins, and besides that the Germanic tribes inheritance rules were quite unique compared to the rest of the ancient world. It was the legal structures (written laws) influenced by these barbarians that the early Church first introduced that put Europe on its unique path to its individualist family structures. This decision by the Church seems to have been based on a purely monetary decision: "How could the Church maximize the money it receives from estates?" is the question they asked. The answer is preferring the individual property owners whims (his willingness to disperse his property to the Church) to the interest of his family.
...And thus European individualism is born.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews