I wonder.

[bronze_ribbons]

In today's New York Times:

Ms. Farge suggests a reason: "In the 18th century, a man and woman lived together for a maximum of three or four years because of wars, epidemics, death during childbirth and so on. Life was a succession of funerals and remarriages. In fact, until today, couples have never had to live together for a long time."

Comments

[xanthophyllippa.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with the maximum 3-4 years part, but I do know that in the 17th century infant and child mortality rates were so high that landed families would often name all their sons the same thing - almost always after the patriarch - so that there was a greater chance of one surviving to carry on the name. An historian friend of mine once tried to do some research on the Gaudy family and discovered that the father and all five sons were named "Thomas." And all five survived...

(Infant and child mortality were high before then as well, but I only know for certain about the name thing in the 1600s.)

Got your email, and am much grateful. More to come on that later.

[mechaieh.livejournal.com]

...all five sons were named "Thomas." And all five survived...

*tags comment for a future poem or story, because this detail is too good not to appropriate for something...*

[xanthophyllippa.livejournal.com]

I can hear it in my head as part of a dryly absurdist poem - the sort of thing that needs Garrison Kellior's voice to sound right out loud, even though he could read pretty much anything and it would still sound dryly absurdist.

You have a profoundly cool flist, by the way.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

I have real problems with that "maximum". My g-grandmother was one of nine. AFAIK her parents weren't separated except maybe if he came to the US before he, so that could have been a couple of years. I don't have the exact dates on hand (tried to look them up but Jewishgen.org's database is down) but I'm pretty sure they were married for decades.

[mechaieh.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that figure seemed awfully low to me. Which is why I figured posting it for the flist to dissect (or affirm) would be a good thing. :-)

[joannemerriam.livejournal.com]

I also question "maximum," but if it'd said, "generally only lived together..." or "often only lived together..." I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.

[qrssama.livejournal.com]

18th century = 1700's, so it would clearly have to depend on what country Ms. Farge was taking her data. If from colonial locations, I could buy it, but I suspect the more industrialized countries (France, England) might have different numbers. There were wars, yes, but the proportion of men in the army wasn't as high as in the 1800's, so I suspect it was not a relevant. And I know the years together in rural China had different numbers than 3-4 years, even with childbirth deaths. So, I suspect the data were more specific than she is using them.

[jamoche]

Looks like someone may have made the same error regarding the relationship between "average" and "maximum" as the people who look at life expectancy figures without realising they're skewed by high infant mortality rates. In a time where the LE at birth might've been 30, someone who made it to 10 might then expect to live beyond 50.

I'd guess 15 is more likely, going off the fact that the historical list of wedding anniversary presents have entries for 1-15 before starting to jump by 5s. Still, it's obvious that as lifespans go up, time spent in a marriage goes up, so the author has a point.

[gramarye1971]

Three or four years maximum? Not so much. If these numbers are for colonial Americans, I would put that figure at somewhere closer to eight or ten, myself, especially once smallpox inoculation began to be more widespread.

But the comment about the succession of funerals and remarriages is an interesting and quite true one, from what I know. Second, third and even fourth wives (or husbands) were fairly common, and all because of the high death rates. It puts me in mind of The Devil in the Shape of a Woman, Carol Karlsen's book about witchcraft trials in colonial New England -- Karlsen proposes that the women who were most vulnerable to being charged with witchcraft were women who somehow interferred with the orderly transition of property down the male line. Elderly widows with sizeable inheritances or property rights, particularly those who did not have brothers or sons and who may have been married more than once or twice...statistically speaking, they were more vulnerable than other women at the time.

[ellid.livejournal.com]

I seriously question those figures. Once you throw out infant mortality and factor in early marriage, it's more like the average first marriage lasting 10-15 years *if* the wife died in childbirth. If she didn't, then the marriage might last 20 or more.

Also, they're forgetting that most "marriages" were formalized until comparatively recently. A couple would set up housekeeping and have a religious ceremony when they could afford it (or when the circuit rider came to town). There are studies indicating that around 1/3 of colonial brides were between 3 and 6 months pregnant at the time of their actual marriage due to this.

[ellid.livejournal.com]

Most marriages were *not* formalized until comparatively recently...*argh*