Orphans

views updated

Orphans

Unfortunate Children. Orphans were found at all levels of medieval society. Orphans were often among the poorest and most vulnerable members of society and were considered worthy of special protection from secular rulers and the Church. Medieval literary works, biographies, and saints’ lives often express profound sympathy for orphans. Generally, provisions were made for the guardianship of an orphan and the administration of his inheritance in his parents’ wills. Often, however, parents died without a will, especially if they were in the lower ranks of society or had died young. In such instances, the care of the child was arranged according to law and guided by social conventions.

Aristocratic Orphans. Among the aristocracy, feudal customs decreed that the orphan and heir of a vassal would come under the guardianship of his father’s lord or king. Indeed, at this level of society, being orphaned was defined as being without a father; widows were rarely granted guardianship of their own children. The demands of the patrilineage were such that a mother was considered something of an outsider. Moreover, a mother’s natal family might demand that she return to them or remarry to the benefit of her family. In this case, a woman was required to leave her children with her husband’s relatives. If the lord or king was not in a position to exercise supervision of the child and property personally, he frequently appointed a proxy or sold the right of guardianship to another nobleman. A guardian had the use of the orphan’s property during his minority, but the law required a guardian to return it in full and with a complete accounting when the child reached the age of majority. The guardian also had the right to arrange the child’s marriage. Such betrothals frequently benefited the guardian more than his ward.

Commoner Orphans. Among the lower ranks of society it was more common for a mother to be guardian of her children and administer their property, either alone or with a co-executor. If the parents had died intestate,

DHUODA’S ADVICE

Between 30 November 841 and 2 February 843 a Prankish noblewoman named Dhuoda wrote a long letter to her son William, who, along with his infant brother, had been taken away from her. The letter is a handbook of religions and social behavior, her attempt to influence the character of both her absent sons. The following excerpts explain her motivation for writing the book and urge William to heed its lessons:

Having noticed that most women in this world are able to live with and enjoy their children, but seeing myself, Dhuoda, Eving far away from you, my dear son William, filled with anxiety because of this, and with the desire to be of aid to you, I am sending you this Ettle manual, written by me, for your scrutiny and education, rejoicing in the fact that, though I am absent in body, this little book will recall to your mind, as you read it, die things you are required to do for my sake. …
… I hope that, busy as you are with mundane and secular preoccupations, you will not neglect frequently to read in this little book sent by me to you, for the sake of my memory, as if you were looking into a mirror or it a chess board… .

Source : James MarcJmnd, The Frankish Mother: Dhuodft,* medical Women Writers, edited by Kadtaana M. Wilson (Athens: Univmity of . Georgk Press, 1984), pp 12-13.

the manor court would make provision for the care of the child. Usually his land was given to another tenant to work, and in return that person would feed, clothe, and house the child. When the child came of age, he would then take up his parents’ holding. This arrangement was precarious, and manor courts had to be vigilant to ensure that the orphan was being cared for properly.

Urban Orphans. In the towns and cities of Europe, civic governments recognized their responsibility to care for orphans and enacted ordinances to protect their persons and property. The mayor and aldermen supervised the guardianship of the orphans of citizens and required an accounting of the administration of their estates when the child reached adulthood. A father’s guild also had an interest in protecting an orphan and would ensure that the child was educated, placed in an apprenticeship, and taught a craft. Urban guardians had many of the same rights and responsibilities as feudal guardians. They could use an orphan’s property, as long as they could account for it in the end. Sometimes, they could also arrange a ward’s marriage to their own advantage. The abundant records of medieval cities include guardians accounting for their behavior and wards complaining that they were defrauded, coerced into marriage, or abused in some other way. Overall, however, the careful provisions of civic ordinances leave the impression that orphans received a great deal of care and consideration in medieval cities.

Poor Orphans. Orphans who were left no land or property were in the most precarious situation. Without an inheritance to guarantee the interest of a guardian, there was little incentive for anyone to care for a child. In the absence of strong extended family ties, orphans could not depend on relatives to look after their needs. In some villages, the neighbors appear in the records as looking after the orphaned children of the community. Religious houses frequently took in orphans and cared for them as part of their charitable mission, and some hospitals specialized in caring for and educating abandoned children. These children were the “poor and miserable” of society, and their institutionalized and impersonal upbringing could hardly have fulfilled their emotional needs or leave them in a position to make their way in the world successfully.

Peter Damian. Some poor orphans, however, were luckier than others. Italian ecclesiastic Peter Damian, who became one of the leaders of eleventh-century church reform, was born to a poor family with many children. After an older brother reproached his mother for giving birth to yet another hungry mouth, his mother sank into depression and would not nurse or care for her newborn. The infant Peter was saved from certain death by a compassionate neighbor woman, who took him in and eventually shamed Peter’s mother into taking her child back and nursing him. Shortly thereafter, however, both Peter’s parents died, and he was left to be brought up by one of his older brothers. This brother and his wife looked after Peter grudgingly, fed and clothed him poorly, and set him to work as a swineherd at an early age. Finally, however, Peter was sent to live with another, kinder brother, and found a more comfortable place in that family.