Beardmore, Carol, Cara Dobbing, and Steven King. Family Life in Britain, 1650–1910. Springer, 2019.

Berry, Helen, and Elizabeth Foyster. The Family in Early Modern England. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Brown, Kenneth D. The British Toy Business: A History Since 1700. A&C Black, 1996.

Capp, B. S. When Gossips Meet: Women, Family, and Neighbourhood in Early Modern England. Oxford University Press, 2004.

Cooper, Tarnya, Aviva Burnstock, Maurice Howard, and Edward Town. Painting in Britain, 1500-1630: Production, Influences, and Patronage. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Duffy, Eamon. Reformation Divided: Catholics, Protestants and the Conversion of England. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017.

Engels, Frederick. The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844. BookRix, 2014.

Fletcher, Anthony, and John Stevenson. Order and Disorder in Early Modern England. Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Harvey, Karen. The Little Republic: Masculinity and Domestic Authority in Eighteenth-Century Britain. OUP Oxford, 2012.

Herbert, Amanda E. Female Alliances: Gender, Identity, and Friendship in Early Modern Britain. Yale University Press, 2014.

Hitchcock, Tim. Down and Out in Eighteenth-Century London. A&C Black, 2004.

Holway, Tatiana. The Flower of Empire: An Amazonian Water Lily, The Quest to Make It Bloom, and the World It Created. Oxford University Press, 2013.

Hoppit, Julian. Parliaments, Nations and Identities in Britain and Ireland, 1660-1850. Manchester University Press, 2003.

Impey, Oliver, and Arthur MacGregor. The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Europe. Ashmolean Museum, 2017.

Lethbridge, Lucy. Servants: A Downstairs History of Britain from the Nineteenth Century to Modern Times. W. W. Norton & Company, 2013.

Marmor, Max, and Alex Ross. Guide to the Literature of Art History 2. American Library Association, 2005.

Muldrew, C. The Economy of Obligation: The Culture of Credit and Social Relations in Early Modern England. Springer, 2016.

Peck, Linda Levy. Consuming Splendor: Society and Culture in Seventeenth-Century England. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Pestana, Carla Gardina. Protestant Empire: Religion and the Making of the British Atlantic World. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

Retford, Kate. ‘A Death in the Family: Posthumous Portraiture in Eighteenth-Century England’. Art History 33, no. 1 (February 2010): 74–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8365.2009.00717.x.

———. The Art of Domestic Life: Family Portraiture in Eighteenth-Century England. Yale University Press, 2006.

Rollison, David. A Commonwealth of the People: Popular Politics and England’s Long Social Revolution, 1066–1649. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Schochet, Gordon J. The Authoritarian Family and Political Attitudes in 17Th-Century England: Patriarchalism in Political Thought. Transaction Publishers, n.d.

Slack, Paul. The English Poor Law, 1531-1782. Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Smith, Anthony D. National Identity. University of Nevada Press, 1991.

Tittler, Robert. Portraits, Painters, and Publics in Provincial England 1540-1640. OUP Oxford, 2013.

Whittle, Jane, and Elizabeth Griffiths. Consumption and Gender in the Early Seventeenth-Century Household: The World of Alice Le Strange. OUP Oxford, 2012.

Wrightson, Keith. Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern Britain, 1470-1750. Penguin UK, 2002.

Zahedieh, Nuala. The Capital and the Colonies: London and the Atlantic Economy 1660-1700. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Looking towards the final part of the early modern period, one primary aspect has remained constant throughout each of the paintings and the way in which they communicated ideas, the dominance of the bourgeoise. The values put across subsequently became transient in and of themselves, spurring the emergence of the luxury goods market as aforementioned and inadvertently, enabling upward mobility of the middling and lower classes. In bringing the polarised gap between class closer through the use of material goods as a shared item of identifiable value, classes started to share other qualities that in Sir Thomas More’s time, would have been frowned upon. This is illustrated perfectly in the portrait of Sir William Pepperrell and his family, painted by notorious American portrait artist John Singleton Copley in 1778. The utilisation of small toy figurines for children to play with was a shared experience, transient of class or gender and something that Kenneth D. Brown makes a point of when explaining, on the social politics of toys during the period, that

‘Although the experience of childhood slightly varied according to social hierarchy, it was still generally the case in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that the roles of children and adults were not yet as distinctly separate as they were subsequently to become.’

In essence, the distinction between class and hierarchy both in terms of the assigned roles within the family unit and furthermore, across the social hierarchy of the time was subverted in the broad use of toys as a mediator in the challenging of assumed social dynamics. This very applicable to the way in which the Pepperrell family sought to present their family, having just escaped to London at the time the painting was done, following the American revolution. Their support of the monarchy and by extension, their British heritage being second generation immigrants, acts as a clear illustration of both how ideas evolved and were transmitted across the Empire, while similarly demonstrating the fact that the evolution of social ideas remained grounded in a focused set of ideals honed on through the evolution of social expectations of the time. This is also why the patriarchal figure of the father is engaging more evidently with his son than in any of the previous portraits of families between the 16^th or 17^th centuries. This is something Karen Harvey muses upon in her conclusion to ‘The Little Republic: Masculinity and Domestic Authority in Eighteenth-Century Britain’ in which she explains that

‘Men’s engagement with the household (and by extension family unit) was not in the manner of a distant patriarch who retired to the ‘refuge’ of the house… Men acted within the domestic environment as general managers, accountants, consumers and general keepers of the family …’[1]

This engagement is still somewhat distant form a contemporary perspective, however the engagement with the family, more so than seen in previous portraits illustrates a clearer departure from the essentially medieval attitudes toward family units as simply separate, smaller groups of people with limited engagement or desire for closeness. In short, Copley’s presentation of the Pepperrell family acts a good bookend to the early modern period and my study of the evolution of family dynamics broadly

In considering the family unit in much the same way those of the late 16^th and 17^th century did, as a transient socio-political vessel that often reflected the primarily medieval attitudes towards the operation of politics, and perhaps more broadly, society at large, it was at its most effective in the earliest part of my study. However, as perceptions surrounding the family evolved in conjunction with the social norms of the time, the family’s role developed from simply being a small organisation of people related but living in separate spheres, to suddenly being thrust into a close dynamic channelled through the aspirational ideals cultivated by the push towards consumerism and the desire to define one’s self and family. The political ramification for this changed dependant on the position of the family within the social hierarchy of the period, but for the most part, the role of the family changed towards a more intimate, parochial unit driven by both economic opportunity and Inopportunity in equal measure. The stemming of the population following the black death lead to families becoming streamlined both in theoretical terms of what defined the family but more so, the emergence of the term ‘household’ and how society defined its members. As ever across these periods, there remained a lust for families to postulate their wealth and influence and while it  resulted in many of the portrait we have looked at, status became ever so slowly less important, if the representation of the toy dolls the children are playing with is anything to go by. In essence, the family and society was inextricably linked and while not simply a reflection, the parochial family unit paved the way for greater social development, in terms of gender and suffrage, the role of children in society and the structuring of political thought in the early 19^th century and onwards.

---

[1] Harvey, Karen. The Little Republic: Masculinity and Domestic Authority in Eighteenth-Century Britain. OUP Oxford, 2012. P. 189

As one of the dominant and subsequently influential factors of the 17^th century societal framework, the power economics had in dictating perceptions surrounding the parochial family unit are unequivocally unrivalled for way it enabled the realisation and subsequent evolution of ideas. As aforementioned, the role of the economy in allowing families to define their identity meant ideals and social expectations were orientated around the bourgeois frame of reference as opposed to that of an idealised view of the family, potentially achievable for families at a lower income with parents not working as aids to the monarchy or the government. It should also be noted that, at the time, the influence that both 16^th and 17^th century poor laws had accounted for nearly £400,000 per annum of the crown’s total income, making up almost 30% total. My repetition of these facts arguably contextualises the family portrait I seek to analyse next, that of Richard Streatfield’s family, painted in 1643 by prolific portrait artist William Dobson.

What Dobson aims to highlight here, having painted for both royalty and the labouring classes at an equal level, is the shared factors and inadvertently, exemplify the influence that typically wealthy representations of family dynamics had on labouring and middling cases alike in the development of aspiration goals and newly assigned values to goods. As Linda Levy Peck expertly qualifies, ‘Luxury consumption grew through expanded demand for existing goods, the creation of new wants and wares to sell goods…’[1] In essence, the emergence of luxury market for these goods gave way to a similarly lucrative black-market selling imitations. While not portrayed explicitly in Dobson’s portrait, it’s important to note the fundamental lack of any items or objects that the family own being presented or highlighted in the portrait, arguably reinforcing the family’s status of middle or labouring class. Furthermore, the mother’s use of the pointing figure gives indictatio and subsequently preference towards the eldest son of the family, with their position in the foreground of the portrait evincing their status of heir to their parents and family.  
It also subsequently exacerbates the staunchly religious overtone to the entire portrait, being one of the few things poorer families had in similar abundance to the material wealth of the bourgeois families I analysed previously. The clothing they’re presented to be wearing, starched white collars and (hats) aplenty, evokes a strict sense of moral values reinforced in the muted colours of their clothing, typical for reformed Protestants to wear as a sign of deference and desire for basic, even utilitarian clothing. This is something that
Eamon Diffy touches upon when they make reference to the typically labouring class family as having ‘thin clothing’[2]. While the clothing the family is shown to wear seems incredibly thick in the fabric use and subsequently evokes quality, it also highlights the fact they were most likely wearing their best clothes and while certainly not comparable to the fabrics shown in Sir Thomas More’s family portrait, it highlights the how the same social expectations and goals that families within the social hierarchy of the period had were fulfilled in arguably different ways.

While the portrait acts as a bridge between both paintings of the 17^th century, the way which the clash between both portraits is  

In contrast to the representation put forward by the Duke of Buckingham, another main  aspects between the two portraits that clash and arguably, represent this aspirational relationship are the use of brighter amore eye catching colours. Indeed, when comparing the brighter and more interesting, if nothing else, background of Richard Streatfield’s family portrait and its use of nature (to enhance the family’s surroundings and the public perceptions of them) TO Dobson’s portrait, and the limitation of any eye catching colours, there is a delegable juxtaposition between both families and arguably both classes.

This is unfortunately what the portrait boils down to. It represents Richard Streatfield’s family as typically ‘good’ ‘worshipping’ Protestants without compromising much. However, that’s all the family can really afford to say about themselves. As aforementioned, the price of identity was too high for most, but for those that could afford it, it enabled them to define them and their families more easily. This is exactly what Dobson’s painting exacerbates perfectly.

---

[1]Peck, Linda Levy. Consuming Splendor: Society and Culture in Seventeenth-Century England. Cambridge University Press, 2005. P. 347

[2]Duffy, Eamon. Reformation Divided: Catholics, Protestants and the Conversion of England. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017. P. 351

Family dynamics played a major role in the politics of the 17^th century, whether through the compartmentalisation of gender roles and the emergence of supposed ‘ideals’ from self-help from authors such as Gervase Markham, as mentioned previously, or the subsequent limited acknowledgements of new and ever-present social phenomena. The emergence of a polarised political landscape with religious conflict at its centre forced perceptions of the family to evolve and adapt to the social framework embossed on British society. While the reformation didn’t evince much of a change in the presentation of wealth and family relations in the period situating Sir Thomas More’s family portrait, the subsequent generations more vehemently illustrate the moral and religious change, as seen in The Duke of Buckingham’s family portrait in 1628. In his article on ‘Gender, Family and the Social Order, 1560-1725’, S.D. Amussen agrees, rightfully stating that

‘Patriarchal political theorists made the family the basis of political order and many others assumed the familial analogy.’[1]

Indeed, it was a site of careful cultivation, the politics and social structuring laid down by the family unit as a group perceived to be ‘the mirror of society’[2]. This is arguably what defines and subsequently segments the previous painting of the More family and subsequently that of the next painting I aim to explore, the Duke of Buckingham and his family, painted by famous portrait artist Gerrit Van Honthorst in 1628. Similarly to the previous portrait, this painting acts as a fundamental representation of the social, political and economic state of Britain and the family unit by extension at the time. If Sir Thomas More’s portrait were to be likened to a proof of concept of the family unit, then the Duke of Buckingham’s family portrait arguably represents the subsequent evolved illustration of the family unit that can be identified as such from a contemporary perspective.

When considering the painting from a social perspective, the way in which it postulates the state of attitudes surrounding the parochial family unit highlights the periodic limitations that gender and social politics had on presentations of these close knit and by the end of the century, essentially private family units. The main change from the 16^th century that draws the most attention to the juxtaposition between attitudes in the 16^th and 17^th centuries derives from the background against which the family is painted. From the lavished surroundings of the household to an almost romanticised Eden-like forest, this naturalisation is evocative of the way in which attitudes shifted towards nature post-reformation as an object to be challenged and ultimately subverted, almost akin to a political ideology. Schocket explains it best when he explains that ‘The family as a natural society ultimately stood at the centre of nature and by the late seventeenth century had become one of the focal points of the political attack.’[3] It represented a subversion of Protestant beliefs as a source of natural authority over human nature, something the Protestant church sought to be subverted through the idealisation of the socio-political links within the family unit. This is also why the family seemingly rejects the lavished representation that the More family sought to put forward, even though it would have been as easily achieved by the Duke of Buckingham owing to his beneficial position of being in great favour with James I at the time. Presented in more muted colours and jewellery, the family is arguably attempting to appeal to the more traditionally protestant ideals in maintaining the sacrosanct ideals of integrity. This is further emphasised through the family’s presentation as consisting of 4 members. With such a powerful and similarly influential family akin to that of the More’s previously analysed, the need for servants would have been integral to the function of their household. However, the fact they chose not to include them arguably illustrates the evolution in attitudes that occurred in the period between both portraits being painted, towards the family as a small and ‘private’ unit, again something that Amussen stresses.
A final aspect that’s worth noting is the lack of representation of the monarch as seen in the More family portrait. Arguably, the lack of illustration highlights not only a shift in attitude but also a perhaps a different audience for the portrait. While the earlier portrait would have been shown in a public place, owing to the way in which the whole ‘family’ (in the all-inclusive sixteenth century sense) was sought to be represented, this portrait had a smaller and more intimate audience, seemingly only the family themselves. This reinforces the idea that changing perceptions surrounding both family units as well as social expectations subsequently dictated what families ought to represent themselves with, as shown in the use of nature to supplement the background as opposed to the household background previously used.

As a painting intent on appealing to the Protestant values of its day, The Duke of Buckingham’s attempts to communicate traditional values and subsequently stay in favour with James I inadvertently illustrates how transient and slow to adopt Protestant values were, post Reformation. Arguably however, the aspects that both paintings share such as the hierarchal representation of men or the idealisation of socio-political ideas surrounding the household illustrate that while the family unit experienced evolution to an extent, its relevance and influence within the family sphere remained almost unchallenged by the end of the 17^th century.

---

[1]S.D. Amussen, Gender, Family and the Social Order, 1560-1725 in Anthony Fletcher and John Stevenson, Order and Disorder in Early Modern England (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987) P.196

[2] —

[3]Gordon J. Schochet, The Authoritarian Family and Political Attitudes in 17Th-Century England: Patriarchalism in Political Thought (London, Transaction Publishers N.D., 1988) Page XVII

As an ambiguous mode of historical study that has been a continuous influence on the hegemonic views of early modern Britain between the late 16^th to the mid 18^th century, portraits presented an expensive way for individuals and families of wealth, power and influence to postulate their social status over those who couldn’t afford it. Indeed, it provided a base to influence the influential and communicate to consorts powerful ideas on society, politics and most importantly in this time, Religion. In our period, it acted as a mode of asserting and protecting the hierarchal structures of class divisions and social stigmas, whilst subtly and sometimes unwittingly evoking the personality or politics of its subject.

Consequently in these blog posts, I aim to illustrate the influence portraiture had over the masses provided the first delegable representation of the ‘family unit’ and the idea of homliness in a more contemporarily recognisable sense than any other in previous centruies. As Gordon Schochet states, ‘The various forms of the familial notion did not assume a single form, for the tradition consisted of several distinct and perhaps contradictory strands.’ Subsequently, I also aim to chart how British society evolved from an atmosphere of absolute religious devotion to a time of economic aspirations and its influence on the evolved role of the family unit.

In attempting to understand and subsequently dissect these key ideas, there comes a need to define how such a moral and culturally influential revolution gained as greater support as it did. While not easy to synthesize it to an individual factor, the influence of identity and its early modern compartmentalisation to family and class is inextricably linked to this. By the early 17^th century, the 1598 and 1602 poor laws had further polarised the class gap between the poor and the wealthy. Rates against the labouring or needy were raised annually, and by 1696, it was estimated they levied up to £400,000 per year[1], equivalently nearly £48 million today[2]. Derrived from local level taxation, especially in urban communities, it illustrates the type of socio-economic constraints that many families at the time were under at the time. John Walter reflects on this best, stating that ‘Economic change in the period was to make economic autonomy always problematic for those at the bottom of the social hierarchy.’

In other words, both individuals and families in the middle and labouring end of the social hierarchy were simply at the behest of constantly evolving economic landscape. Those at the opposite end however, were often intent on illustrating just how autonomous they were. Enter the portrait of Sir Thomas More and his family, painted by Rowland Lockley at the end of the 16th century. What this portrait represents wasn’t simply a postulation of power and influence by the More family. It more broadly illustrates a conflict in periodical assumptions, in wealth, hierarchy and arguably the formulation of the parochial family unit as we know it.

This primarily stems from the larger size of the ‘family’ represented, a fundamental anomaly for the time. Stemming from a decline in the population of Britain following the black death in the 14^th century, the parochial family unit was often made of 3-4 people, typically two adults, usually a husband and wife along with between one and three children. Subsequently, what leads this painting to stand out is the its apparent scale of servants deemed worthy of inclusion and their resultant focalisation as members of  ‘the household’. A consequence of extreme wealth, families in the late 16^th and early 17^th century were able to subvert typical parochial dynamics and women’s assigned role as the ‘domestic housewife’ through the employment of servants, something Jane Whittle and Elizabeth Griffiths remark on when explaining that ‘Gentry households were not small private family units. They were large and although centred on the family, family members were outnumbered by live-in employees. With a career spanning from service in the House of Commons under Henry VIII as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Speaker of the House, Sir Thomas Moore’s household certain fits the description of a ‘Gentry Household’.

It is important to note however, that those of labouring or middling class who viewed this portrait with Sir Thomas among servants and family in the same vein, and similarly surrounded by luxury goods and items presented a clear discord between the identifiable family dynamics of small and intimate clusters of parents and children, and their perception of what defined ‘the home’.

The painting itself deliberately presents the family surrounded by ornate and valuable objects, such as a household clock, luxury drapery and instruments, all typically European in manufacture and all luxury and aspirational objects for those of lower middle or labouring classes. Placed with intent in a clear and easy to view manner, they exemplify both the heightened status of the family but moreover, the family’s accessibility to these goods. The wall-clock illustrates this well. Not only is its’ (lackered) finish with expensive gold motifs aiming to reinforce this, but the clock as a concept presented perceptions of a need for promptness and subsequently, importance and greater status than those who didn’t have one. This is further reinforced when we consider the colour and illustrated quality of the drapery surrounding the family. Even though it was one of the oldest colours being made at the time, ‘Lincoln Green’ was one of the most expensive colours to produce en-masse in velvet drapery typically seen in similar portraits of the time. These highlight a clear departure from tradition in taking advantage of the rise of international trade to lavish their surroundings in expensive and rare objects.

By contrast, the patriarchy represented through the focalisation of Sir Thomas Moore as the typical ‘father figure’ while the female figures to the centre of the painting seemingly kneel in deference to him and other men around them arguably represent an abundant desire to maintain or even reinforce the traditionally gendered hierarchy of the period. The utilisation of educational items such as the books many women hold in the painting or the lutes in the background aim to illustrate, to various extents, the extent in which their family of primarily women were educated. While not essential, the fact their presentation within the painting focalised their education, arguably highlights another family dynamic that became more overtly utilised over the subsequent centuries, the rise of education as a more idealised quality within wifery. This is especially important in context of the increasing dependency placed on women as educators to the family and as Gervaise Markham stated in his how-to guide for women ‘The Good Huswife’, ‘an embodiment of hope, religion and education for her husband and children’ in the household.

What we subsequently see in the Moore family portrait then is both the culmination of these different and conflicting traditions under an idealised view of closeness and interconnectivity with patriarchy at its core. Perhaps not a conscious result, but one that came from a social and periodic perspective that formed the notion of hierarchy at the dynamic’s centre. The subsequent illustration of the family thereby presented what many within the labouring and middling classes would have internalised as an aspirational illustration of the family unit. Indeed, if we look more widely at the societal trends between the 16^th and 18^th centuries and how they were reflected in family portraiture, as I seek to do with my other blog posts, there exists a slow but clear shift in attitudes toward the parochial unit owing to the population expansion Britain experienced over time in a slow recovery from the Black Death of 14^th century as well as evolving societal notions surrounding gender and hierarchy.

As an ambiguous mode of historical study that has been a continuous influence on the hegemonic views of early modern Britain between the late 16^th to the mid 18^th century, portraits presented an expensive way for individuals and families of wealth, power and influence to postulate their social status over those who couldn’t afford it. Indeed, it provided a base to influence the influential and communicate to consorts powerful ideas on society, politics and most importantly in this time, Religion. In our period, it acted as a mode of asserting and protecting the hierarchal structures of class divisions and social stigmas, whilst subtly and sometimes unwittingly evoking the personality or politics of its subject. Consequently, in these blog posts, I aim to explore how art reflected a delegable shift in society around areas of religion, hierarchy and identity. I also aim to chart how British society evolved from an atmosphere of absolute religious devotion to a time of economic aspirations and its influence on the evolved role of the family unit.

In attempting to understand and subsequently dissect these key ideas, there comes a need to define how such a moral and culturally influential revolution gained as greater support as it did. While not easy to synthesize it to an individual factor, the influence of identity and its early modern compartmentalisation to family and class is inextricably linked to this. By the early 17^th century, the 1598 and 1602 poor laws had further polarised the class gap between the poor and the wealthy. Rates against the labouring or needy were raised annually, and by 1696, it was estimated they levied up to £400,000 per year[1], equivalently nearly £48 million today[2]. Derrived from local level taxation, especially in urban communities, it illustrates the type of socio-economic constraints that many families at the time were under at the time. John Walter reflects on this best, stating that ‘Economic change in the period was to make economic autonomy always problematic for those at the bottom of the social hierarchy.’

In other words, both individuals and families were constrained by the newly evolving economic landscape of the period. This economic instability was often what inhibited their ability to improve the family’s situation, subsequently defining their position within the social structures of the time. This struggle is often reflected in early modern family paintings, especially those done by prolific painter William Dobson.
(420 words)

(AUTHOR’S NOTE FOR READER: These paragraphs will form part of the first assessed blog post on the project. I hope to further detail Dobson’s background and what this picture illustrates in relation to the paragraphs previously. I also hope to detail the research I undertook in order to find this material in upcoming blog posts. Finally, any post that I want to fall under the ‘4 assessed blog posts’ banner, I shall title “Assessed Post 1,2… etc.”)

---

[1] Slack, Paul. The English Poor Law, 1531-1782 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995), P.18

[2] National Archives Currency Conveter (accessed 20/10/2019, 5:20pm)