What Historical Fiction Cliches Would You Put In Room 101?

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
2,810
Reaction score
866
Location
Connecticut
People who had to earn a living by manual labour, or even skilled labour, but still had no money to send their children to school, would have been teaching their sons the trade from the earliest possible age, a) to ensure they passed on the skill, and b) just for an extra pair of hands to help earn their keep. If anyone had a right to complain that they didn't have enough time to bond with their son, it should be his mother!

Well, there were regional differences. In England, from at least the late middle ages it was the custom at all levels of the social hierarchy for parents to send their children (both boys & girls) out from a young age to be educated/trained by others: in the aristocracy they became pages & maids-in-waiting, in the trades they became apprentices, and in the farming classes they became farm servants. This practice was remarked on by visitors form the Continent as a sure sign that the English didn't love their children. But the English regarded it as the opposite, the theory being that they would treat their own children too softly and let them grow up lazy & ignorant, while they wouldn't be as indulgent with someone else's, and the practice persisted as an English peculiarity for many centuries. (Though eventually young gentlemen were sent away not to other households but to schools.)
 

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
3,151
Location
In God I dwell, especially in Eugene OR
Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

The book I was thinking of was Godric by Fredrick Buechner. (I think I spelled that right.) And no, the lad wasn't sent out to fosterage, not in the book anyway.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal
 

Nikweikel

Registered
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
48
Reaction score
4
Location
California
In 16th century Florence it was common practice for all people of all classes to farm their infants out to wetnurses as soon as they were baptized (usually after 6 day.) You'll notice in "Romeo and Juliet", Juliet and her nurse are much closer than Juliet and Lady Capulet. Historians believe this was due to skyhigh infant mortality rates, especially in the cities, where disease would be more prevalent.

Only the wealthy had in-house nurses. After the infant was weaned, the child was retrieved to start schooling or service, depending on the status of the parents. Some children were sent into the workforce as young as three.

But a peasant complaining he never saw his father because his father was always working. Um, no. More likely he never saw his father because his father forgot to pick him up from the nurse's.
 

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
ut a peasant complaining he never saw his father because his father was always working. Um, no. More likely he never saw his father because his father forgot to pick him up from the nurse's.

I would have also thought that a peasant would never see his father as he would have gone out to work at dawn and back home when the light was failing.

It also sounds anachronistic that historic peoples would have a 21st century preoccupation about 'seeing' his father. My Roman MC would have seen more of his tutor than of his father who was pursuing the cursus honorem (probably spent more time in the provinces than at home with his family.)
 

mayqueen

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
4,624
Reaction score
1,548
I feel like the whole "oh, I never see my father!" lament thing is very modern, at least when I've read iterations of it in historical fiction, for all of the reasons y'all have mentioned. If there isn't the social expectation that you're going to have a close, friendly relationship with your parents, you're not necessarily going to lament the lack of that relationship. I think that obviously not seeing eye-to-eye with your parents would be a big thing (just as it is today), but not because your parents aren't spending enough quality time with you or whatever.

For those of you writing in the late 1800s, early 1900s (or just in general), there's a fascinating book by Zelizer called PRICING THE PRICELESS CHILD. She used newspapers, insurance documents, and other archives to track how children went from being essentially little work-horses that parents have lots of to the model we have today (limited number of children, highly valued emotionally, concerted cultivation, etc).