Western European marriage pattern

The Western European marriage pattern is a family and demographic pattern that is marked by comparatively late marriage (in the middle twenties), especially for women, with a generally small age difference between the spouses, a significant proportion of women who remain unmarried, and the establishment of a neolocal household after the couple has married. In 1965, John Hajnal posited that Europe could be divided into two areas characterized by a different patterns of nuptiality. To the west of the line, which extends approximately between Saint Petersburg, Russia, and Trieste, Italy, marriage rates and thus fertility were comparatively low and a significant minority of women married late or remained single and most families were nuclear; to the east of the line and in the Mediterranean and particular regions of Northwestern Europe, early marriage and extended family homes were the norm and high fertility was countered by high mortality.[1][2]

To the west of the Hajnal line, shown in red, the Western European marriage pattern arose. The blue lines mark areas of Western Europe that did not conform to Western Europe's marriage pattern

In the 20th century, Hajnal's observations were assumed as valid by a wide variety of sociologists. However, since the early 21st century, his theory has been routinely criticized and rejected by scholars. Hajnal and other researchers did not have access to, or underplayed[3] nuptiality research from behind the Iron Curtain which contradict their observations on central and eastern Europeans.[4][5] Though some sociologists have called to revise or reject the concept of a "Hajnal line," other scientists continue to cite Hajnal’s research on the influence of western European marriage patterns.[6][7][8]

Although John Hajnal himself was stridently anti-fascist and a survivor of the Holocaust, his theory has been warmly received and heavily promoted by Neo-Nazis, and the alt-right.[9][10]

The idea itself has its roots in earlier theories of the racial inferiority of Slavic people. Nazi anthropologist Werner Conze is credited with the earliest development of what would later be called the "Hajnal line". Werner Conze's work directly influenced the decision makers responsible for the Holocaust and the associated mass murder of millions of Slavic civilians in German-occupied territory during World War 2.

Overview

The shift toward this “Western European Marriage Pattern” does not have a clear beginning, but it certainly had become established by the end of the sixteenth century on most of the shores of the North Sea, likely as a result of contact with the New World. A marriage pattern where couples married comparatively late in life (and especially late for the bride), on average in the middle twenties after and setting up a nuclear household, all of this preceded by time working as servants or apprentices. Also, a significant proportion of women married after their twenties and 10–20% of women never married.[11][12][13] Female age at marriage has proven to be a strong indicator for female autonomy and is used frequently by economic history research.[14]

Effects

The pattern of late and non-universal marriage restricted fertility massively, especially when it was coupled with very low levels of childbirth out of wedlock. Birth control took place by delaying marriage more than suppressing fertility within it. A woman's life-phase from menarche (which was generally reached on average at 14 years, with some women reaching it earlier[15][16]) to the birth of her first child was unusually long, averaging ten years.[17][18]

Compared to other cultures

This marriage pattern varied across time and space and class; noblewomen certainly married early, but they were a small minority. The comparatively late age at marriage for women and the small age gap between spouses is rather unusual; women married as adults rather than as dependents, often worked before marriage and brought some skills into the marriage, were less likely to be exhausted by constant pregnancy, and were about the same age as their husbands [19][20]

To the west of the Hajnal line, about half of all women aged 15 to 50 years of age were married at any given time while the other half were widows or spinsters; to the east of the line, about seventy percent of women in that age bracket were married at any given time while the other thirty percent were widows or nuns.[21] The marriage records of Western and Eastern Europe in the early 20th century illustrate this pattern vividly; west of the Hajnal line, only 25% of women aged 20–24 were married while to the east of the line, over 75% of women in this age group were married and less than five percent of women remained unmarried. Outside of Europe, women could be married even earlier and even fewer would remain celibate; in Korea, practically every woman 50 years of age had been married and spinsters were extremely rare, compared to 10–25% of women in western Europe age 50 who had never married.[11]

Variation within Western Europe

Where in the mid-1500s in England, approximately 8 percent of women remained unmarried the inference would be that that figure was either the same or lower in the previous several centuries;[22] marriage in Medieval England appears to be a robust institution where over 90% of women married and roughly 70% of women aged 15 to 50 years were married at any given time while the other 30% were single or widows.[23] In Yorkshire in the 14th and 15th centuries, the age range for most brides was between 18 and 22 years and the age of the grooms was similar; rural Yorkshire women tended to marry in their late teens to early twenties while their urban counterparts married in their early to middle twenties. In the 15th century, the average Italian bride was 18 and married a groom 10–12 years her senior. An unmarried Tuscan woman 21 years of age would be seen as past marriageable age, the benchmark for which was 19 years, and easily 97 percent of Florentine women were married by the age of 25 years while 21 years was the average age of a contemporary English bride.[24][25]

While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 years for women and 27 years for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[26] and the percentage of unmarried Englishwomen rose from less than 10% to nearly 20% by the mid-17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26 years at the same time,[27] there was nonetheless great variation within Britain alone; while Lowland Scotland saw patterns similar to England, with women married in the middle twenties after a period of domestic service, the high birth rate of Highland Scotland and the Hebrides imply a lower age of marriage for the bride, possibly similar to Gaelic Ireland,[28] where Brehon Law stated that women became legally marriageable at 15 years and men at 18 years.[29] Similarly, between 1620 and 1690 the average age of first marriage for Swedish women was roughly 20 years, approximately 70% of Swedish women aged between 15 and 50 years were married at any one time, and the proportion of single women was less than 10%, but by the end of the 18th century it had risen to roughly 27 years and remained high with the celibacy rate as a result of falling infant mortality rates, declining famines, decreasing available land and resources for a growing population, and other factors.[23] Similarly, Ireland's average age of marriage in 1830 was 23.8 for women and 27.47 for men where they had once been about 21 and 25, respectively, and only about 10% of adults remained unmarried;[30] in 1840, they had respectively risen to 24.4 and 27.7;[31][32] in the decades after the Great Famine, the age of marriage had risen to 28–29 for women and 33 for men and as much as a third of Irishmen and a fourth of Irishwomen never married due to chronic economic problems that discouraged early marriage.[33]

Economy

Class differences played a great role in when a couple could marry; the wealthier that a couple was, the likelier that they were to marry earlier. Noblewomen and gentlewomen married early, but they were a small minority;[34] a thousand marriage certificates issued by the Diocese of Canterbury between 1619 and 1660 show that only one bride was aged thirteen years, four were fifteen, twelve were sixteen, seventeen were seventeen, and the other 966 of the brides were aged nineteen years or older when they married for the first time. The church stipulated that both the bride and groom must be at least 21 years of age to marry without the consent of their families; the most common ages of marriage were 22 for women, 24 for men; the median ages were 22.8 for women and 25.5 for men; the average ages were 24 years for women and nearly 28 years for men. The youngest brides were nobility and gentry.[35]

The moderate rates of fertility, mortality, and marriage within the region were tied to the economy; when times were better, more people could afford to marry early and thus have more children and conversely more people delayed marriages (or remained unmarried) and bore fewer children when times were bad. This contrasts with societies outside of this region, where early marriage for both sexes was virtually universal and high fertility was counteracted by high mortality;[36] in the 15th century, a Tuscan woman 21 years of age would be seen as past marriageable age, the deadline for which was 19 years, and easily 97 percent of Florentine women were married by the age of 25 years while 21 years was the typical age of an English bride.[37][24]

Significance

The region's late marriage pattern has received considerable scholarly attention in part because it appears to be unique; it has not been found in any other part of the world prior to the 20th century. However, similar marriage patterns, with a high degree of female agency (as measured by the so-called 'female-friendliness index') have been documented in Mongolia, Japan, and parts of Southeast Asia.[38] The origins of the late marriage system are a matter of conjecture prior to the 16th century when the demographic evidence from family reconstitution studies makes the prevalence of the pattern clear; while evidence is scant, most English couples seemed to marry for the first time in their early twenties before the Black Death and afterward, when economic conditions were better, often married in their late teens.[39] Many historians have wondered whether this unique conjugal regime might explain, in part, why capitalism first took root in Northwestern Europe, contributing to the region's relatively low mortality rates, hastening the fragmentation of the peasantry and the precocious formation of a mobile class of landless wage-earners. Others have highlighted the significance of the late marriage pattern for gender relations, for the relative strength of women's position within marriage, the "conjugal" dowry system of Northwestern Europe in which the dowry merged with the husband's wealth and would thus grow or shrink depending on circumstances (perhaps an incentive for many women to work),[40] the centrality of widows in village land inheritance, and the vitality of women's community networks.[41]

Background

Antiquity

The beginnings of this marriage pattern might be found as early as the time of the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar, writing in the first century B.C, wrote that while the Germanic tribes to the north of the empire were communal with their land, living under the Sippe kinship system, the homesteads were largely separate from each other, unlike the closer proximity in Roman towns. And Tacitus, writing a century and a half later, also observed these many private households among the Germanic tribes, although there was public ownership of pastures and controlled use of the forests.[42]

Anglo-Saxon kinship terms were generally very basic; the same word is used for the titles of nephew and grandson, likewise for the term for granddaughter and niece. Based on this, the nuclear household seems to be the norm. Also, since the Church forbade marrying within a given degree of kinship, the common people were probably further discouraged from keeping elaborate kinship networks; Britain only had so many people and virtually everybody on the island was related to some degree and possibly the distant relations had to be forgotten or nearly all marriages would be within the prohibited degrees.[43]

In any case, while nuclear residences might have been the norm for families, the extended family was undeniably important for the Anglo-Saxons; As with many other Germanic tribes, if a member of a family was wronged or injured in any way, the Kentish Laws outlines the restrictions of feuds and reparations to the victim of the offense; kindreds were to take charge of reparation and they could (with a few exceptions, for example, when the conflict was too close in blood-line) arrange either for vengeance or for the payment of compensation to the kin of the killed.[44] In addition, Anglo-Saxon women, like those of other Germanic tribes, are marked as women from the age of twelve onward, based on archaeological finds, implying that the age of marriage coincided with puberty.[45]

Christianity and manorialism

The rise of Christianity created more incentives to keep families nuclear; the Church instituted marriage laws and practices that undermined large kinship groups. From as early as the fourth century, the Church discouraged any practice that enlarged the family, like adoption, polygamy, taking concubines, divorce, and remarriage. The Church severely discouraged and prohibited consanguineous marriages, a marriage pattern that has constituted a means to maintain kinship groups (and thus their power) throughout history; Canon law followed civil law until the early ninth century, when the Western Church increased the number of prohibited degrees from four to seven.[46] The church also clipped the ability of parents to retain kinship ties through arranged marriages by forbidding unions in which the bride did not clearly agree to the union. These rules were not necessarily followed unanimously nor did all cultures across Europe evolve toward nuclear families, but by the latter half of the Middle Ages the nuclear household was dominant over most of Northwestern Europe[47] and where in the old indigenous religions, women married between 12 and 15 years of age (coinciding with puberty) and men married in their middle twenties, as Christianity expanded men married increasingly earlier and women married increasingly later[48]

The rise of manorialism in the vacuum left after the Fall of Rome might also have weakened the ties of kinship at the same time that the Church had curtailed the power of clans; as early as the 800s in northern France, families that worked on manors were small, consisting of parents and children and occasionally a grandparent. The Church and State had become allies in erasing the solidarity and thus the political power of the clans; the Church sought to replace traditional religion, whose vehicle was the kin group, and substituting the authority of the elders of the kin group with that of a religious elder, the presbyter. At the same time, the king's rule was undermined by revolts on the part of powerful, communal kin groups, whose conspiracies and murders threatened the power of the state and, once manorialism had become established, also threatened the demand of manorial lords for obedient, compliant workers; in the west, manorialism was unsuccessful in establishing itself in Frisia, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, the East of England, and the south of Iberia and Italy.[49][50]

Indeed, Medieval England saw marriage age as variable depending on economic circumstances, with couples delaying marriage until the early twenties when times were bad and the average age falling to the late teens after the Black Death, when there were labor shortages;[51] by appearances, marriage of adolescents was not the norm in England.[22] The sudden loss of people from the plague resulted in a glut of lucrative jobs for many people and more people could afford to marry young, lowering the age at marriage to the late teens and thus increasing fertility.[52]

The beginnings of consensual marriage

About 1140, Gratian established that according to canon law the bonds of marriage should be determined by mutual consent and not consummation, voicing opinions similar to Isaac's opinion of forced marriages; marriages were made by God and the blessing of a priest should only be made after the fact. Therefore, a man and a woman could agree to marry each other at even the minimum age of consent- fourteen years for men, twelve years for women- and bring the priest after the fact. But this doctrine led to the problem of clandestine marriage, performed without witness or connection to public institution.[53] The opinion of the parents was still important, although the final decision was not the decision to be made by the parents,[54] for this new consent by both parties meant that a contract between equals was drawn rather than a coerced consensus.[55]

Patriarchy remained in some form or another, including the necessity of the dowry by young women. To curb secret marriages and remind young couples of parental power, the Medieval Church encouraged prolonged courtship, arrangements and monetary logistics, informing the community of the wedding, and finally the formal exchange of vows.[56] While in the South a woman's dowry was viewed as separate from her husband's wealth, in the Northwest the dowry was "conjugal"; a woman's dowry merged with her husband's wealth and would grow or shrink depending on circumstances and to which she had rights in widowhood,[57] an attractive incentive for women to earn money. And the chance for women to earn money in the one hundred and fifty years after the Black Death was attractive, with less competition for jobs; as much as half of women in the North willingly worked to earn money for marriage while their Southern contemporaries were married or widows before turning to work and unmarried young women only worked as a last resort, lest her honor be put at risk.[58]

Early Modern Europe

The average age at first marriage had gradually risen again by late sixteenth century; the population had stabilized and availability of jobs and land had lessened. In the last decades of the century the age at marriage had climbed to averages of 25 for women and 27 for men in England and the Low Countries as more people married later or remained unmarried due to lack of money or resources and a decline in living standards, and these averages remained high for nearly two centuries and averages across Northwestern Europe had done likewise.[59] Because of its sacramental nature, marriage was increasingly held to be indissoluble, and sexual relations outside of marriage were viewed as illicit. Christian Europe banned polygamy and divorce, and attempted to prohibit any form of sexual relationship that was not marriage, such as concubine or premarital sex, termed fornication. Women were generally expected to bring a dowry when they married, which ranged from a few household goods to a whole province in the case of the high nobility. Remarriage after the death of a spouse was acceptable for both men and women, and very common, though men remarried faster than women. Most issues regarding marriage and many other aspects of family life came under the jurisdiction of church courts and were regulated by an increasingly elaborate legal system termed canon law. The ideals for marriage were not followed in many instances: powerful individuals could often persuade church courts to grant annulments of marriages they needed to end; men, including priests and other church leaders, had concubines and mistresses; young people had sex before marriage and were forced into marriages that they did not want. Nevertheless, these ideals and the institutions established to enforce them remained important shapers of men's and women's understanding of and place within a family.[60]

When a growing population of poverty caused by “over-hasting marriages and over-soon setting up of households by the youth”.,[61] the decree of the Common Council of London in 1556 raised the age of consent to twenty-one.[62] This aligned with the contemporary views that condemned those who had no means to establish and maintain their own household. The Act of 1901, also contributed to an increase in the average age of first marriage.[62] It allowed overseers to apprentice children of the parish poor from the age of ten to twenty-four, essentially delaying the prospects of marriage.[61]

So many Englishmen began migrating en masse to North America that the marriage prospects for unmarried Englishwomen dwindled and the average age of first marriage rose for Englishwomen. In addition, there was a sharp rise in the percentage of women who remained unmarried and thus decreased fertility; an Englishwoman marrying at the average age of 26 years in the late 17th century who survived her childbearing years would bear an average of 5.03 children while an Englishwoman making a comparable marriage in the early 19th century at the average age of 23.5 years and surviving her childbearing years would bear on average 6.02 children, an increase of about 20 percent.[63][27]

From 1619 to 1660 in the archdiocese of Canterbury, England, the median age of the brides was 22 years and nine months while the median age for the grooms was 25 years and six months, with average ages of 24 years for the brides and nearly 28 years for the grooms, with the most common ages at marriage being 22 years for women and 24 years for men; the Church dictated that the age when one could marry without the consent of one's parents was 21 years. A large majority of English brides in this time were at least 19 years of age when they married, and only one bride in a thousand was thirteen years of age or younger.[64]

William Shakespeare's drama Romeo and Juliet puts Juliet's age at just short of fourteen years; the idea of a woman marrying in secret at a very early age would have scandalized Elizabethans. The common belief in Elizabethan England was that motherhood before 16 was dangerous; popular manuals of health, as well as observations of married life, led Elizabethans to believe that early marriage and its consummation permanently damaged a young woman's health, impaired a young man's physical and mental development, and produced sickly or stunted children. Therefore, 18 came to be considered the earliest reasonable age for motherhood and 20 and 30 the ideal ages for women and men, respectively, to marry. Shakespeare might also have reduced Juliet's age from sixteen to fourteen to demonstrate the dangers of marriage at too young of an age; that Shakespeare himself married Anne Hathaway when he was just eighteen (very unusual for an Englishman of the time) might hold some significance.[65]

Origin of theory

The earliest conception of the theory was created by Werner Conze, a Nazi anthropologist.[66] He refined the racist ideas of his mentor, Gunther Ipsen, as well others, who sought to link racial attributes like skin color and ethnicity to marriage patterns.[67] His deeply flawed[68] analysis of Baltic nuptiality data left an impression on decision makers in the German military, convincing them of the latent racial inferiority and alienness of Slavic people. Since the 1990s, Werner Conze's influence has been linked by German scholars to the mass murder of millions of Slavic civilians during the German occupation of central and eastern European countries.[69][70][71][72]

See also

References
  1. Hajnal, John (1965): European marriage pattern in historical perspective en D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley, (eds.) Population in History, Arnold, Londres.
  2. Kertzer, David I and Marzio Barbagli. 2001. The history of the European family. New Haven: Yale University Press. p xiv
  3. Szołtysek 2012"This tendency to underplay variations in family living arrangements in the European East was criticized even among Western scholars. As early as in 1990s, D. Kertzer argued that “eastern Europe, like western Europe, displayed a diversity of household systems in preindustrial times” which were linked to “regional differences in political economic arrangements and ecological conditions.”153"
  4. Szołtysek, Mikołaj (2012). "Spatial construction of European family and household systems: a promising path or a blind alley? An Eastern European perspective". Continuity and Change. 27 (1): 11–52. doi:10.1017/S0268416012000057. ISSN 0268-4160. S2CID 55649305. "This essay represents an attempt at a re-examination of the Western scientific evidence for the existence of the divergent ‘Eastern European family pattern’. This evidence is challenged by almost entirely unknown contributions of Eastern European scholars, revealing the stark incompatibility of the two discourses."
  5. Angeli, Aurora (2019). "Book Review: Rethinking East-central Europe: Family Systems and Coresidence in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth". Genus. 75. doi:10.1186/s41118-018-0048-4.
  6. Piazzo 2017.
  7. Dennison, Tracy; Ogilvie, Sheilagh (2014). "Does the European Marriage Pattern Explain Economic Growth?". Cambridge University Press. 74 (3): 651–693. doi:10.1017/S0022050714000564. S2CID 8112005.
  8. Henrich, Joseph (2020). The WEIRDest People in the World. Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.
  9. Ferenc, Glatz (1983). East European Quarterly, Volume 17. Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado. pp. 31–40.
  10. Hermansson, Patrik; Lawrence, David; Mulhall, Joe (2020). The International Alt-Right: Fascism for the 21st Century?. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0429627095.
  11. Hajnal, John (1965). "European marriage pattern in historical perspective". In D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley (ed.). Population in History. Arnold, Londres. pp. 101–143.
  12. Coontz, Stephanie. 2005. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York City: Viking Press, Penguin Group Inc. p 125-129.
  13. De Moor, Tine; van Zanden, Jan Luiten (2010). "Girl power: the European marriage pattern and labour markets in the North Sea region in the late medieval and early modern period". The Economic History Review. 63 (1): 1–33 [p. 17]. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00483.x.
  14. Baten, Joerg; de Pleijt, Alexandra M. (2018). "Girl power Generates Superstars in Long-term Development: Female Autonomy and Human Capital Formation in Early Modern Europe". CEPR Working Paper. 13348.
  15. "Average age of Menarche in History". MUM.
  16. Hajnal, John (1965): European marriage pattern in historical perspective en D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley, (eds.) Population in History, Arnold, Londres. 123
  17. Seccombe, Wally (1992). A Millennium of Family Change, Feudalism to Capitalism in Northwestern Europe. Verso. pp. 184–186. ISBN 0-86091-332-5.
  18. Amundsen, Darrel; Dreis, Carol Jean (1973). "The Age of Menarche in Medieval Europe". Human Biology. 45 (3): 363–369. JSTOR 41459883. PMID 4584336.
  19. Stone, Linda. 2010. Kinship and Gender. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Pg. 227
  20. Coontz, 2005. Pg. 129
  21. Kertzer 2001; 224–225
  22. Hanawalt, Barbara A. (1986). The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England. Oxford University Press. pp. 95–100. ISBN 0-19-503649-2.
  23. Palm, Lennart; Schott, Raphaëlle (2001). "Le changement caché du système démographique suédois à "l'Époque de la Grandeur"". Annales de démographie historique. 2 (102): 141–172. doi:10.3917/adh.102.0141.
  24. Philips, Kim M. 2003. Medieval Maidens: Young Women and Gender in England, C.1270-c.1540. Manchester University Press. Pg 37
  25. De Moor, Tine and Jan Luiten van Zanden. 2009. p 16-18
  26. De Moor, 2009; 17
  27. Cressy, David (1997). Birth, Marriage, and Death : Ritual, Religion, and the Life-Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England. Oxford University Press. p. 285. ISBN 0-19-820168-0.
  28. A. Lawrence, "Women in the British Isles in the sixteenth century", in R. Tittler and N. Jones, eds, A Companion to Tudor Britain (Oxford: Blackwell John Wiley & Sons, 2008), ISBN 1405137401, p. 384.
  29. Ginnell, Laurence (1894). The Brehon Laws: A Legal Handbook: Chapter I.
  30. Lee, Joseph J. (2008). The Modernization of Irish Society, 1848–1918. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-7171-6031-0.
  31. Mokyr, Joel (2013). Why Ireland Starved: A Quantitative and Analytical History of the Irish Economy, 1800–1850. Routledge Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-415-60764-3.
  32. O'Neill, Kevin (2003). Family and Farm in Pre-Famine Ireland: The Parish of Killashandra. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 180. ISBN 0-299-09840-0.
  33. Nolan, Janet (1989). Ourselves Alone: Women's Emigration from Ireland, 1885–1920. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 74–75. ISBN 0-8131-1684-8.
  34. Coontz, Stephanie. 2005. pp. 125–129.
  35. Laslett, Peter. 1965. p. 82
  36. Kertzer, David I and Marzio Barbagli. 2001. p. xxii
  37. De Moor, Tine and Jan Luiten van Zanden. 2009. pp. 17–18
  38. Diebolt, Claude; Rijpma, Auke; Carmichael, Sarah; Dilli, Selin; Störmer, Charlotte (31 January 2019). Cliometrics of the Family. Springer. p. 158. ISBN 978-3-319-99480-2.
  39. Hanawalt, Barbara A. (1986). The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England. Oxford University Press. pp. 95–100. ISBN 978-0-19-503649-7.
  40. De Moor, Tine and Jan Luiten van Zanden. 2009. p 8-12
  41. Kertzer, David I and Marzio Barbagli. 2001. p. xxii
  42. Gies, Frances and Joseph. 1989. Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages. Harper Perennial. Pg. 31–32
  43. Hanawalt, Barbara A. (1986). The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England. Oxford University Press. pp. 79–83. ISBN 0-19-503649-2.
  44. Hines, John. 1997. The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century. Boydell Press. Pgs. 214–215.
  45. Green, Dennis Howard and Siegmund, Frank. 2003. The Continental Saxons from the Migration Period to the Tenth Century. Boydell Press. Pg. 107
  46. Bouchard, Constance B., 'Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries', Speculum, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Apr. 1981), pp. 269–70
  47. Greif, Avner (2006). "Family Structure, Institutions, and Growth: The Origin and Implications of Western Corporatism". American Economic Review. 96 (2): 308–312. doi:10.1257/000282806777212602. JSTOR 30034664. S2CID 17749879.
  48. Herlihy, David. 1985. Medieval Households. Harvard University Press. Pgs. 17–19
  49. Heather, Peter. 1999. The Visigoths from the Migration Period to the Seventh Century: An Ethnographic Perspective. Boydell & Brewer Ltd. Pgs 142–148
  50. Mitterauer, Michael. 2010. Why Europe?: The Medieval Origins of Its Special Path. University of Chicago Press. Pg. 53–57
  51. Hanawalt, Barbara A. (1986). The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England. Oxford University Press. pp. 96. ISBN 0-19-503649-2.
  52. Lehmberg, Stanford E. and Samantha A. Meigs. 2008. The Peoples of the British Isles: A New History: From Prehistoric Times to 1688. Lyceum Books. Pg. 117
  53. De Moor 2009. Pg 5–6
  54. Huijgen, Carolien. 2010. Family formation and marriage patterns: A comparison between Sri Lanka and Europe. University of Utrecht. 31 November 2011.<igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/>
  55. De Moor 2009. Pg 6
  56. Coontz, Stephanie. 2005. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York City: Viking Press, Penguin Group Inc. Pg 107
  57. De Moor, 2009. Pg 8
  58. De Moor 2009. Pgs 11–12
  59. De Moor, 2009. Pg 17
  60. Wiesner-Hanks, Merry E. (2011). Gender in History: Global Perspectives (Second ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-4051-8995-8.
  61. Stone, Lawrence (1997). The family, sex and marriage in England, 1500-1800. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 9780297771333.
  62. Donahue, Charles (1983). "The Canon Law On the Formation of Marriage and Social Practice in the Later Middle Ages". Journal of Family History. 8 (2): 144–158. doi:10.1177/036319908300800204. S2CID 144042143.
  63. Wrigley, E. A. (1997). English Population History from Family Reconstitution 1580–1837. Cambridge University Press. pp. 135–139.
  64. Laslett, Peter (1965). The World We Have Lost. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. p. 82.
  65. Franson, J. Karl (1996). "'Too Soon Marr'd': Juliet's Age as Symbol in 'Romeo and Juliet'". Papers on Language & Literature. 32 (3): 244.
  66. Melegh, Attila (2017). European Regions and Boundaries: A Conceptual History. Oxford: Berghahn Books. p. 310. ISBN 978-1785335853. "He was also creating the pathways toward the so-called Hajnal line, at least in the Baltic region. Conze was a follower and promoter of the “Ostforschung” in Nazi Germany, publishing his related thesis in 1940."
  67. Fertig, Georg. "The Hajnal thesis before Hajnal: The pre-history of the European Marriage Pattern" (PDF). Universität Münster.
  68. Szołtysek, Mikolaj; Goldstein, Barbara Zuber (2016). "Historical Family Systems and the Great European Divide: The Invention of the Slavic East". Demogràfia English Edition. 52 (5).
  69. Dunkhase, Jan Eike (2010). Werner Conze: A German Historian in the 20th Century. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 9783525370124.
  70. "Historiker im Nationalsozialismus Geschichtswissenschaft und der "Volkstumskampf im Osten"". Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung.
  71. Haar, Ingo (2002). Historiker Im Nationalsozialismus: Deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft Und Der Volkstumskampf Im Osten (Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 352535942X.
  72. Heim, Susanne; Blunden, A.G.; Götz, Aly (2002). Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691089388.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.