Kinship and Family An Anthropological Reader 1st

Edition Robert Parkin (Editor) - Downloadable PDF

2025

https://ebookfinal.com/download/kinship-and-family-an-anthropological-
reader-1st-edition-robert-parkin-editor/

Visit ebookfinal.com today to download the complete set of

ebooks or textbooks
Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Same Sex Cultures and Sexualities An Anthropological

Reader Blackwell Readers in Anthropology 1st Edition
Jennifer Robertson
https://ebookfinal.com/download/same-sex-cultures-and-sexualities-an-
anthropological-reader-blackwell-readers-in-anthropology-1st-edition-
jennifer-robertson/

Ethnographic Fieldwork An Anthropological Reader Blackwell

Anthologies in Social and Cultural Anthropology 1st
Edition Antonius C. G. M. Robben
https://ebookfinal.com/download/ethnographic-fieldwork-an-
anthropological-reader-blackwell-anthologies-in-social-and-cultural-
anthropology-1st-edition-antonius-c-g-m-robben/

Intentional Community An Anthropological Perspective Susan

Love Brown

https://ebookfinal.com/download/intentional-community-an-
anthropological-perspective-susan-love-brown/

Vagabond Vol 29 29 Inoue

https://ebookfinal.com/download/vagabond-vol-29-29-inoue/
Macroeconomics Twelfth Edition Parkin

https://ebookfinal.com/download/macroeconomics-twelfth-edition-parkin/

Comparative Functionalism An Essay in Anthropological

Theory Walter Goldschmidt

https://ebookfinal.com/download/comparative-functionalism-an-essay-in-
anthropological-theory-walter-goldschmidt/

Kinship Language and Prehistory Per Hage and the

Renaissance in Kinship Studies 1st Edition Doug Jones

https://ebookfinal.com/download/kinship-language-and-prehistory-per-
hage-and-the-renaissance-in-kinship-studies-1st-edition-doug-jones/

The Making of Psychotherapists an Anthropological Analysis

First Edition Davies

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-making-of-psychotherapists-an-
anthropological-analysis-first-edition-davies/

Economics 5th Edition Michael Parkin

https://ebookfinal.com/download/economics-5th-edition-michael-parkin/
Kinship and Family An Anthropological Reader 1st
Edition Robert Parkin (Editor) Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Robert Parkin (editor)
ISBN(s): 9780631229995, 063122999X
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 37.94 MB
Year: 2004
Language: english
 Edited by
Robert Parkin and
Linda Stone
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2023 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/kinshipfamilyantO00OOunse
Kinship and Family
Blackwell Anthologies in Social and Cultural Anthropology
Series Editor: Parker Shipton, Boston University

Series Advisory Editorial Board:

Fredrik Barth, University of Oslo and Boston University
Stephen Gudeman, University of Minnesota
Jane Guyer, Northwestern University
Caroline Humphrey, University of Cambridge
Tim Ingold, University of Aberdeen
Emily Martin, Princeton University
John Middleton, Yale Emeritus
Sally Falk Moore, Harvard Emerita
Marshall Sahlins, University of Chicago Emeritus
Joan Vincent, Columbia University and Barnard College Emerita

Drawing from some of the most significant scholarly work of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, the Blackwell Anthologies in Social and Cultural Anthropology
series offers a comprehensive and unique perspective on the ever-changing field of
anthropology. It represents both a collection of classic readers and an exciting
challenge to the norms that have shaped this discipline over the past century.

Each edited volume is devoted to a traditional subdiscipline of the field such as the
anthropology of religion, linguistic anthropology, or medical anthropology; and
provides a foundation in the canonical readings of the selected area. Aware that
such subdisciplinary definitions are still widely recognized and useful — but increas-
ingly problematic — these volumes are crafted to include a rare and invaluable
perspective on social and cultural anthropology at the onset of the twenty-first
century. Each text provides a selection of classic readings together with contempor-
ary works that underscore the artificiality of subdisciplinary definitions and point
students, researchers, and general readers in the new directions in which anthropol-
ogy is moving.

1 Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader

Edited by Alessandro Duranti
2 A Reader in the Anthropology of Religion
Edited by Michael Lambek
3 The Anthropology of Politics: A Reader in Ethnography, Theory, and Critique
Edited by Joan Vincent
4 Kinship and Family: An Anthropological Reader
Edited by Robert Parkin and Linda Stone
 Kinship and Family
An Anthropological Reader

Edited by
Robert Parkin and Linda Stone

¢ Blackwell
g Publishing
 Editorial material and organization © 2004 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA

108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JE UK
550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia

The right of Robert Parkin and Linda Stone to be identified as the Authors of the Editorial Material
in this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of
the publisher.

First published 2004 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kinship and family: an anthropological reader / edited by Robert Parkin and Linda Stone.
p. cm. — (Blackwell anthologies in social and cultural anthropology; 4)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-631-22998-1 (hardback: alk. paper) — ISBN 0-631-22999-X (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Kinship. 2. Family. I. Parkin, Robert, 1950-II. Stone, Linda, 1947-III. Series.

GN487.K5S3 2004
306.85—de21
2003056028

A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

Set in 10/12pt Sabon

by Kolam Information Services Pvt. Ltd, Pondicherry, India

For further information on

Blackwell Publishing, visit our website:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com
 Contents

Preface

Acknowledgments
General Introduction Robert Parkin with Linda Stone

Part! Kinship as Social Structure: Descent and Alliance

Section 1 Descent and Marriage
Introduction Robert Parkin

1 Unilateral Descent Groups

Robert H. Lowie
The Nuer of the Southern Sudan
E. E. Evans-Pritchard

Lineage Theory: A Critical Retrospect

Adam Kuper
African Models in the New Guinea Highlands
J. A. Barnes
The Amerindianization of Descent and Affinity 104
Peter Riviere
Inheritance, Property, and Marriage in Africa and Eurasia 110
Jack Goody

Section 2. Terminology and Affinal Alliance 119

Introduction Robert Parkin 121

vi CONTENTS

Kinship and Social Organization 136

W. H. R. Rivers
Structural Analysis in Linguistics and in Anthropology 145
Claude Lévi-Strauss
Concerning Trobriand Clans and the Kinship Category “Tabw’ 158
Edmund Leach
The Dravidian Kinship Terminology as an Expression of Marriage 176
Louis Dumont

Prescription, Preference and Practice: Marriage Patterns

among the Kondaiyankottai Maravar of South India 187
Anthony Good
12 Analysis of Purum Affinal Alliance 205
Rodney Needham
13 Tetradic Theory: An Approach to Kinship 22)
N. J. Allen

Part Il Kinship as Culture, Process, and Agency 237

Section 1 The Demise and Revival of Kinship phish,
Introduction Linda Stone 241
14 What Is Kinship All About? Sy
David M. Schneider
1S Toward a Unified Analysis of Gender and Kinship ZS
Sylvia Junko Yanagisako and Jane Fishburne Collier
16 Sexism and Naturalism in the Study of Kinship 294
Harold W. Scheffler
17 The Substance of Kinship and the Heat of the Hearth: Feeding,
Personhood, and Relatedness among Malays in Pulau Langkawi 309
Janet Carsten
Section 2 Contemporary Directions in Kinship 329
Introduction Linda Stone 331
18 Surrogate Motherhood and American Kinship 342
Helena Ragoné
19 Eggs and Wombs: The Origins of Jewishness 362
Susan Martha Kahn
20 Gender, Genetics, and Generation: Reformulating Biology
in Lesbian Kinship 378
Corinne P. Hayden
 CONTENTS VII

21 Has the World Turned? Kinship and Family in the Contemporary

American Soap Opera 395:
Linda Stone
22 Kinship, Gender, and Mode of Production in
Post-Mao China: Variations in Two Northern Villages 408
Hua Han
23 Primate Kin and Human Kinship 424
Robin Fox
24 Kinship and Evolved Psychological Dispositions:
The Mother’s Brother Controversy Reconsidered 438
Maurice Bloch and Dan Sperber
Glossary 456
Index 461
 Preface

The purpose of this collection is to trace, through selected examples, the develop-
ment of mainstream kinship theory and to provide a kind of intellectual genealogy of
the treatment of this important topic in anthropology. As will be argued, despite a
reduction in interest in kinship in the 1970s and 1980s, it is a topic that has been
consistently central to anthropological practice and theory, and, what is more, it has
helped form both. All this activity and thought down the years has demonstrated
that there are few aspects of kinship that are universal cross-culturally beyond
the basics of biology, and that even these basics are subject to variation in the way
they are interpreted, if they are recognized indigenously at all. Ultimately, though,
however much cross-cultural variation there might be, no society is without some-
thing we can recognize and treat as kinship, and comparative studies are once again
being seen as both feasible and desirable. Comparison does not necessarily imply a
search for uniformities: it can raise questions about the reasons for variations, and
even suggest answers, at least in the local context. Thus although kinship has
repeatedly been dismissed as a category of use in analysis, it refuses to go away, as
the recent spate of books on the topic demonstrates.
An overview of what these new studies are both building on and seeking to go
beyond is therefore timely. In general, the temptation to try and cover all the
innumerable topics that have been discussed under the rubric of kinship has been
resisted in the present collection. Instead the focus has been on the development of
theory that, in broad terms, has approached kinship as a form of social organization
or given reasons for querying or rejecting this association. The collection should
therefore be regarded as representative rather than comprehensive, given the limita-
tions on selection. However, references are given to other material, much of which
will lead the reader off in other, more specialized directions.
Following the General Introduction, which offers the sort of overview mentioned
above, the book is divided into two parts. Part I covers descent and alliance theory,
covering the history of anthropological kinship up to the 1970s. Part II covers the
demise and later revival of kinship in anthropology from the early 1970s to the
present. Each part is subdivided into two sections. In Part I the first of these sections
ee
ee PRE
PREFACE IK
IX

covers the dominance of descent or lineage theory in the century or so after the
1860s, an approach which was intimately bound up with the very different schools
of evolutionism and functionalism. This approach was even dominant enough to
determine, not to say distort, theories of marriage in this period. Some of the critical
reaction to it from about 1960 is also covered here. The second section focuses on
another part of this reaction, namely the replacement of descent theory by alliance
theory as the dominant school from the 1950s to the 1970s. This was linked with the
arrival of structuralism, which similarly replaced functionalism in this period.
In Part II the first section deals in broad terms with the shift from social organiza-
tion to culture, whose influence has spread more recently, since it is seen as a better
way of understanding indigenous notions of kinship or “relatedness” than the more
analytical schools of the past. The second section focuses on some of the new
directions kinship studies are now taking. There are many different approaches.
We have not tried to cover all of them or all specific topics, but have preferred to
concentrate on those that sum up a key trend or that represent the shift to “culture”
in a particularly apt way. We have provided introductions to the readings for general
guidance and to highlight what we would regard as the key points (of course, other
authors might choose different emphases). These introductions also contain signifi-
cant references to other work.
Kinship is not the most straighttorward topic in anthropology to grasp immedi-
ately, and many of the concepts routinely used by professional anthropologists cause
difficulties to students and fellow academics outside the field. We have tried to define
and explain the main ones used here, and a glossary has been provided, but the
reader is directed to one of the introductory books if further enlightenment is
required. A selection of the more recent of these is given below:

Ladislav Holy, Anthropological Perspectives on Kinship. London and Chicago:

Pluto Press, 1996.
Sound, critical, and up to date in the main, but rather weak on affinal alliance and
especially kinship terminology.
Robert Parkin, Kinship: An Introduction to Basic Concepts. Oxford: Blackwell,
1997,
Defines key terms, provides a potted history of the main aspects of the topic, and
discusses a number of ethnographic examples.
Linda Stone, Kinship and Gender: An Introduction. 2nd edition. Boulder: Westview
Press, 2000. .
Good on definitions and with extended discussions of a number of ethnographic
examples.

A couple of older books are also useful, though the first is currently out of print:

Alan Barnard and Anthony Good, Research Practices in the Study of Kinship.
London: Academic Press, 1984.
Written basically for the fieldworker, but discusses a lot of key theories and
concepts in a very sound way.
X PREFACE

Robin Fox, Kinship and Marriage. Harmondsworth: Penguin, reissued 1983

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Now old, but a highly readable and generally sound text, though rather reliant on
biological concepts in the early chapters.

Earlier collections of readings include especially the following (now all out of
print, but probably still available in libraries):

Paul Bohannan and John Middleton, eds., Kinship and Social Organisation. New
York: Natural History Press, 1968.
Brings together many key early texts on kinship terminology, both unilineal and
cognatic descent, and Australian marriage systems, though missing out much obvi-
ous work on affinal alliance which was already available.
Paul Bohannan and John Middleton, eds., Marriage and the Family. New York:
Natural History Press, 1968.
Does a similar job as the previous book for marriage and family organization.
Jack Goody, ed., Kinship: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971.
Nelson Graburn, ed., Readings in Kinship and Social Structure. New York and
London: Harper & Row, 1971.
Both are very comprehensive collections of material published until that time.

Robert Parkin and Linda Stone

April 2003
 Acknowledgments

The editors and publishers wish to thank the following for permission to use
copyright material:
1. Lowie, Robert H., 1950 Unilateral Descent Groups. Social Organisation, pp.
236-66; 421-3; 428-51. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
2. Evans-Pritchard, E. E., 1940 The Nuer of the Southern Sudan, Im African
Political Systems. M. Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard, eds. pp. 271-96. London
etc.: Oxford University Press.
3. Kuper, Adam, 1982 Lineage Theory: A Brief Retrospect. Annual Review of
Anthropology 11: 71-95. Copyright © 1982 by Annual Review of Anthropology,
www.annualreviews.org. Reprinted with permission.
4. Barnes, J. A., 1962 African Models in the New Guinea Highlands. Man 62:
5-9. Reprinted with permission of Blackwell Publishing.
5. Riviere, Peter, 1993 The Amerindianization of Descent and Affinity. V-Homme
33/2-4: 507-16; edited. Reprinted by permission of VEhss Publishing, France.
6. Goody, Jack, 1969 Inheritance, Property, and Marriage in Africa and Eurasia.
Sociology 3: 557-6; edited. Reprinted with permission of Sage Publications Ltd.
7. Rivers, W. H. R., 1968 Kinship and Social Organization, Lecture One. Kinship
and Social Organization, London: Athlone Press pp. 39-54, 110-11. Reprinted by
permission of The Continuum International Publishing Group.
8, Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 1963 Structural Analysis in Linguistics and Anthropol-
ogy. Structural Anthropology 1: 31-54. Harmondsworth: Penguin. English transla-
tion copyright © 1963 Basic Books, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Basic Books, a
member of Perseus Books, L.L.C.
9. Leach, Edmund, 1958 Concerning Trobriand Clans and the Kinship Category
‘Tabu’. The Developmental Cycle of Domestic Groups, Jack Goody, ed. pp. 120-45,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reproduced with permission of Cambridge
University Press.
10. Dumont, Louis, 1953 The Dravidian Kinship Terminology as an Expression
of Marriage (including correspondence with Radcliffe-Brown). Man 53: 34-9, 112,
143. Reproduced with permission of Blackwell Publishing.
Xii. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

11. Good, Anthony, 1981 Prescription, Preference and Practice: Marriage Pat-
terns among the Kondaiyankottai Maravar of South India. Man (n.s.) 16: 108-29.
Reproduced with permission of Blackwell Publishing.
12. Needham, Rodney, 1962 Analysis of Purum Affinal Alliance. Im Structure and
Sentiment: A Test Case in Social Anthropology, pp. 74-100, 127-30. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press. Reproduced with permission of The University of
Chicago Press.
13. Allen, N. J., 1986 Tetradic Theory: An Approach to Kinship. Journal of the
Anthropological Society of Oxford 17: 87-109. Reprinted by permission of the
Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford.
14. Schneider, David M. 1972 What is Kinship All About? Kinship Studies in the
Morgan Centennial Year. Priscilla Reining, ed. pp. 32-63. Washington, D.C.: The
Anthropological Society of Washington; edited.
15. Yanagisako, Sylvia Junko and Jane Fishburne Collier 1987 Toward a Unified
Analysis of Gender and Kinship. In Gender and Kinship: Essays Toward a Unified
Analysis. Jane Fishburne Collier and Sylvia Junko Yanagisako, eds., pp. 14-50.
Stanford: Stanford University Press. Copyright © 1987 by the Board of Trustees of
the Leland Stanford Jr. University. Used with permission of Stanford University
Press, www.sup.org; edited.
16. Scheffler, Harold W., 1991 Sexism and Naturalism in the Study of Kinship. Ia
Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern
Era, Micaela di Leonardo, ed., pp. 361-82. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Reproduced with permission of The University of California Press.
17. Carsten, Janet, 1995 The Substance of Kinship and the Heat of the Hearth:
Feeding, Personhood and Relatedness among Malays in Pulau Langkawi. American
Ethnologist 22: 223-41. Reproduced by permission of the American Anthropo-
logical Association. Not for sale or further reproduction.
18. Ragoné, Helena, 1994 Surrogate Motherhood and American Kinship. In,
Surrogate Motherhood: Conception in the Heart. Helena Ragoné, pp. 109-37.
Boulder: Westview Press. Copyright © 1994. Reprinted by permission of Westview
Press, a member of Perseus Books L.L.C.
19. Kahn, Susan Martha, 2000 Eggs and Wombs: The Origins of Jewishness. I
Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel, Susan
Martha Kahn, pp. 112-39. Durham: Duke University Press. All rights reserved.
Used by permission of the publisher; edited.
20. Hayden, Corinne P., 1995 Gender, Genetics and Generation: Reformulating
Biology in Lesbian Kinship. Cultural Anthropology 10: 41-63. Reproduced by
permission of the American Anthropological Association. Not for sale or further
reproduction.
21. Stone, Linda, 2002 Has the World Turned? Kinship in the Contemporary
American Soap Opera. (Original contribution.)
22. Han, Hua 2002, Kinship, Gender and Mode of Production in Post-Mao
China: Variations in Two Northern Villages. (Original contribution.)
23. Fox, Robin, 1975 Primate Kin and Human Kinship. In Biosocial Anthropol-
ogy, Robin Fox, ed. pp. 9-35. New York: John Wiley and Sons; edited.
24. Bloch, Maurice and Dan Sperber, 2002 Kinship and Evolved Psychological
Dispositions: The Mother’s Brother Controversy Reconsidered. Current Anthropol-
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS _ Xiil

ogy 43(S). Copyright © The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.

All rights reserved.
Every effort has been made to trace copyright holders and to obtain their permis-
sion for the use of copyright material. The authors and publishers will gladly receive
any information enabling them to rectify any error or omission in subsequent
editions.
 ar
—

_ 16 q) Saad, J 171 Mee a ‘o> 9 pais. =

ine Pom Jai 1o oe ES
: rian Jat i! Sh y= a) Pomme es 7 .
7? b-sie en whe , WW pAal '- (hoo Gupte = - ee

Ste i tale O-din f wD, tnt, Sea eg

* egies olotiee a : ; -
| dot
wt fois.
t oye?
og Aiccaeiy Gee) Dee,4 2
ee =i vim er ag +Oyne hatte et i
butris po Vien fant Ae
' oi) ay Vary) ee
fr — ae wer ‘ Aw a’ vw & eeu
obit) ti <4, aal <2 ge-e=w@¢ Ge
; < ;
pet's (Bas G@ in

7 boersey oe aeee ee re
~ -' semiGi > atime Ww Béer Ghar! Gap. Aire a
ee S- PP vo th, or SER Gently ipo -a-@
_ Whale -aSP (eo. S 5 962 nage ~~ aise Ge @ > -

Gm i*g = fe hele a
“en
> te awry o Fame
- . re “sa = , Ase @O=une-s hr A) Vale @ 4

= Sh, 2 ae yee cad

Gar) a a ss ee ae Bae) go —
er ¢€ =" Z 54 sas on oa \, at _

Poe Ai'ens2ih
Phy (ope
amen
sree
Aen Oo SO
ts E_Heprtes S ni a
a e464 © a 4 Sas pa
D ~ => nae =

— ov Ch ysl ant teats Veoly aan i 7

Song” \s ee ee PA Bevpa lhe
“=> ’ ea) 18 @ aia: Oa
_ re - ; ; = a
7 mi T Gh . negara
; > eS Poe a
 General Introduction
Robert Parkin with Linda Stone

The present reader brings together a number of items tracing the broad lines of
development of thought in a key area of social anthropology — kinship. It has proved
impossible within the scope allowed to give coverage to all trends and topics in the
subject. The selection is therefore of texts that represent the main intellectual
genealogy of this topic: it does not claim to be comprehensive. Accordingly, the
focus is on the relationship of kinship to certain forms of social organization, and to
the development of anthropological theory. This ought to be explained a little more
before we proceed further.
Naturally, but also
social formations that owe little or nothing to kinship, except perhans metaphoric-
ally, such as the state, the community, divisions of
relations, slavery, etc.

en t iven that the origins of anarepuloey lie in part in Victorian

intellectuals’ self-affirmation of their own sense of superiority and civilization, the
study of “primitives” was almost bound to be of intense interest. In addition, the idea
of evolution, which had roots in philology as much as in Darwin as far as the infant
social sciences were concerned, had both extended the time depth of the sense of the
past, and helped stimulate an interest in “origins.” The latter motivation had also
been stimulated by an interest in archaeology, which had developed as a largely
amateur discipline in its own right since the eighteenth century. The general desire to
know more about the origins of humanity, and of human social life, in these
circumstances — which were ones of increased opportunity as well as altered per-
spectives — led to an interest in contemporary “primitive” peoples in the Americas
and in European overseas empires. The assumption was that these peoples repre-
sented survivals from an earlier stage of history, which western Europe and North
America, at any rate, had moved away from in making “progress.” Such peoples
could therefore tell “civilized” Victorians something about their own pasts — indeed,
explicit but misleading parallels were frequently made, for example, between
the clans of contemporary peoples in the Empire and those of ancient Greece and
2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Rome. And for the more radical minds of the period, there was every chance
that “primitives,” however backward and ignorant at the present time, would
catch up with the “civilized.” At least this perspective recognized the basic unity of
the human species, a position that itself had to be fought for in the new science
of anthropology.
Such are the basic reasons for the importance of kinship in early attempts
to understand the fundamentals of “primitive” social organization. And while an-
thropology has managed to rid itself of the prejudices associated with these mid-
Victorian attitudes, the centrality of kinship in anthropological theory persisted up
to about 1970. This was for the very similar reason that it seemed to be at the core of
the social organization of the peoples who were still being studied most in anthro-
pology, who were mostly extra-European. By contrast, the study of European
societies was for long prone to silent dismissal as a “soft” topic (cf. Cole 1977),
and Euro-American kinship contributed virtually nothing to theory in the century or
so between Morgan and Schneider.
Kinship has also been important in anthropology in the sense that many of the
major developments in the discipline have been related to its study. Kinship, unlike
religion, say, is one of the comparatively few topics that anthropology has managed
to make its own. In this respect, it has only really faced competition from the
sociology and history of the family, and neither of these has managed to become
central to its respective discipline. In fact, most of the major figures who have made
contributions to anthropology have done so in the area of kinship. This will hope-
fully become apparent in what follows in the selected texts and our introductions to
them, as well as in the brief history of the anthropological treatment of kinship
offered in this introduction. First, however, we need some idea of what kinship is
and what it is not.

The Idea of Kinship in Anthropology

Kinship obviously involves relationships, which in the Western, quasi-scientific view
frequently
he view that is conventional
in the Western part of the developed world, at any rate, is that children are the
biological issue of both parents equally, and that groups of children that are the issue
of a particular couple are siblings. Yet even here a certain and, in some parts of the
Western world, increasing number of relationships of kinship can only be described
as social, since there is open recognition that they are essentially substitutes for a
relationship that is normally defined biologically, as with adoption, fostering, and
step-relations. In addition, the popular view of kinship in the West is far from being
entirely scientific, since it makes reference even to bodily substances in a metaphor-
ical way. The frequent use of blood as indicating a certain sort of relationship, for
example, is ultimately arbitrary, and therefore culturally determined: other societies
may choose flesh or bone. Another aspect of this is the feeling that a child may
actually “take after” one parent more than the other — again quite arbitrarily as far
as biological relationship is concerned. There is also a conventional acceptance that
nurture is as important as nature, that a proper upbringing is required and not just
biology. Even in our own liberal world, children are generally seen as needing some
form of disciplining, for their own as well as society’s good, whether through
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 3

persuasion or chastisement, whether at home or at school. This “socialization,” as it

is called academically, is seen as being as much a part of upbringing as the care and
protection of infants until they are mature enough to stand on their own feet, which
is what a biological approach may tend to stress. Even genealogy, or the calculation
of relationships through one-to-one links between relatives, that anthropologists
have relied on so extensively as a method of analysis, has been claimed not to fit
American ideas about kinship at all exactly, despite widespread assumptions to the
contrary (cf. the item by Schneider, below, Chapter 14).
Then there is marriage, in virtually any society an important institution that is
often regarded as the foundation for the legitimate birth and upbringing of children.
It therefore may be seen as legitimizing the biological activities, especially sex, that
underpin these. Yet it is usually seen as a contractual rather than biological relation-
ship in itself, even in societies with cross-cousin marriage, where the affinal (i.e.,
marriage) relationship itself may be regarded as inherited. The ambiguous position
of marriage meant that it was separated from consanguinity (or “kinship” in the
narrow sense of, literally, “blood” ties) as an analytical category for a long time in
anthropology, before the alliance theorists of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s fused the
two categories together as “kinship.” This, together with the other non-biological
factors just mentioned, reinforced the longstanding argument, going back to the
start of the modern anthropological treatment of kinship in the 1850s and 1860s,
that
For the social anthropologist, therefore, much is both missed and misunderstood
in approaching kinship solely as if it were biology. Certainly, a number of anthro-
pologists have repeatedly pointed out that biology must be involved in kinship, since
only this explains the physical continuity of the human population as a whole. One
example here is the philosopher turned anthropologist Ernest Gellner (1957, 1960),
whose argument along these lines was dismissed by Needham (1960), J. A. Barnes
(1961), and Beattie (1964), writing from a more purely social anthropological point
of view. The whole debate, which is discussed by Harris (1990: 27-39), led to Beattie
practically dismissing kinship as an independent field of study, on the basis that
kinship only ever appears in the context of something else, which is usually political,
economic, or ritual. This point of view was criticized in its turn by Schneider (1964),
who was already beginning to develop his view of kinship as culturally specific (see
his item below). In addition, he pointed out that one could just as easily learn
something about politics, economics, and ritual from kinship as the other way
round. But Schneider’s own dismissal of kinship as an anthropological category
that can be compared (his item below; also 1968, 1984) has led to Gellner’s basic
point being repeated more recently by, for example, Scheffler (1991) and Stone
(2001: 8). In fact not even human biologists in the main, let alone any of these
particular anthropologists, would deny either the existence or the significance of the
social aspects of kinship. Lévi-Strauss represents what might be called the orthodox {
position in social anthropology (cf. his item below, Chapter 8), namely that kinship |
\

is distinctively social, or in his terms cultural, precisely insofar as it deviates from the *
biological. For the social anthropologist the biological aspects cannot be denied; but,
being uniform, they cannot explain cultural variation and are therefore uninforma-
tive in relation to the issues that concern social anthropologists the most.
In any case, the more one moves away from modern, Western societies and
out into the rest of the world, the less appropriate the applicability of this
y
4 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

model becomes. In the first place, ideas of birth and conception may differ radically
from even the quasi-scientific view of popular Western discourse, varying the parts
played by the respective parents in the creation of a new life, or denying one or even
both parents any part in it at all. As noted above, the substance, or substances, that
are thought to link parents and children, or siblings, may differ, and there may be a
belief in supernatural intervention of some sort. There may be radical differences in
family organization, not to mention ideas of what the family is for: the former
Western ideal of the monogamous nuclear family “for life” is far from being uniform
to all humanity, and indeed hardly corresponds to uniform practice in the West itself
any longer, especially given the ideological challenges to it since the 1960s.
Larger structures, based on notions of kinship, also exist in many parts of the
world, especiall
However, even these structures are
unlikely to be perfect representations of relationships in reality: intervening gener-
ations may be collapsed, ancestors forgotten or mythologized, and collateral lines
allowed to lapse from the record. Some may be very shallow, with people scarcely
remembering their grandparents. In addition, there may be radical differences in
how such relationships are traced, which has important consequences for the consti-
tution of such groups: they may be patrilineal, tracing relationships through male
links only; matrilineal, through female links only; or cognatic, tracing links through
either gender indifferently (nor does this entirely exhaust the variation anthropolo-
gists have encountered). A further source of variation is what, if anything, such
groups do: they may regulate marriage, channel inheritance, or simply be a form of
classification providing a cognitive map of the universe of kinship. Conversely, it has
struck many anthropologists that such groups may actually be founded on co-
residence and not kinship, or at least not on descent per se, at all, or that a mixture
of these principles may be involved. The first group of articles is chiefly concerned
with this topic of descent, what it means, and whether it really exists at all.
Marriage is another fruitful source of variation. Apart from some sense of it
regulating sexual intercourse for particular ends, there is little theoretical agreement
on its purpose in human societies. Thus it may be thought that it legitimates children
or property relations; provides a channel of communication, and of other gifts and
services, between whole social groups; provides mutual support and companionship,
and so on. At least there is no argument concerning the variety of its forms. Societies
may recognize plural or polygamous marriages (either the polygyny of one man
having more than one wife, or its reverse, polyandry) as well as monogamous ones;
there may be requirements to marry within certain groups (the endogamy of Indian
castes, of whole ethnic groups) and/or outside of others (the exogamy of many though
certainly not all descent groups); the requirement to marry a certain category of kin,
typically defined in the literature as cross-cousin marriage; the permission or prohib-
ition of divorce; different sorts of marriage payment, either bridewealth in exchange
for a wife or a dowry being given along with her; in some societies, working for one’s
bride through bride service, etc. Systems of affinal alliance that are based on cross-
cousin marriage —a staple anthropological topic for years, though also a controversial
and demanding one — are a main concern of many of the second group of articles.
In short, while anthropology has always had its great synthesizers and compar-
ativists, it is the variations that have struck professionals the most, as well as making
the subject exciting and relevant. In kinship, these extremes of variation, together
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
The text on this page is estimated to be only 10.83%
accurate

Mate 10 ^^^^W. r^^r^r^iP^ i 1 V ^ - ►».; OLD BUCKS

POINT LACE. (Lent by ills. ir. ir. Carlile.) BUCKS POINT LACE. {Lent
by Miss Pope.)
The text on this page is estimated to be only 23.44%
accurate

Plate 11 Caen ' y I NOJiMANDY .•;/ A/cncorji

fSt£:%odus(J_S68) - — '*''"''' -/"^x"^ .fU^pS Mechlin* J " •, tti//i/
Map showing the principal routes taken by the Flemish and
Huguenot Emigrants in 1568, 1572, and 1685. In the last period a
number of the refugees went from Nantes and Bordeaux to
Porlsmouth.
 CHAPTER VII THE REIGN OF CHARLES II. 1660 — 1685 "^
By the time of Charles II. Brussels Lace had undergone a remarkable
alteration. 1-1 1^ f , , "IS- Point d' Ihe pattern became far more
elabo- Angieterpo. rate ; the outline of the design and the veins of
the leaves became raised — an effect achieved by twisting and
plaiting, not by using a thicker thread ; and a number of grounds
were used, with the result of one of the most beautiful laces ever
invented. It obtained the name of Point d' Angleterre' (English
Point). In some varieties of this lace the openings left in the pattern
were filled with brides (legs), whence this kind was called Point d'
Angleterre a Brides. In both varieties fine needle-point fillings were
often added. Two theories have been put forth respecting the origin
of this lace, and with a view to explaining its name. I. That of Mrs.
Palliser, Miss Alice Dryden, Miss M. Jourdain and others, who .hold
that it originated at Brussels — that it is, as a matter of I See Plate
8. E
 50 THE ROMANCE OF THE LACE PILLOW. fact, Brussels
lace of the best period. They point out that in 1661 Charles II.
issued a proclamation enforcing his father's Act which prohibited the
entry of Continental lace ; and allege not only that the merchants,
finding themselves unable to bring their Brussels Lace to England
openly, had recourse to smuggling; but also that, in order to protect
themselves, they both sold it in this country and exported it into
France as Point d" Angleterre^ Consequently, notwithstanding its
name, none of it was ever made in England. In support of this
theory, Mrs. Palliser quotes a memorandum by the Venetian
Ambassador to the English Court in 1695, who states that the lace
then in fashion in England was " that called English point, which you
know is not made here but in Flanders, and only bears the name of
English to distinguish it from the others." 2. The second theory,
which is held by M. Seguin, Mrs. Neville Jackson and Mr. H. H.
Armstrong of Olney, is that this lace originated in Devonshire where
large quantities were made, and that the Brussels workers who
made still larger quantities were only the copiers. They are of
opinion that the name alone sufficiently proves that the lace was
made in England. They argue further, that you might just as well
contend that because the best Valenciennes lace was for long • Ed.
igo2, p. 117.
 THE REIGN OF CHARLES II. 51 made at Ypres it was never
made at Valenciennes, and they point out that it was the invariable
custom in early times for a fabric to retain the name where it was
first produced in quantity. " It is quite time," says Mrs. Neville
Jackson, " English people realised that one of the finest results of
the lace industry which the world has ever seen, was an original
English product, and that it owed only an occasional improvement in
fine stitching to foreign influence.' . . Rodge of Devonshire obtained
the Flemish secret of making the fine fillings and joins which give the
finishing touch in rendering Point d' Angleterre one of the most
perfect types of lace which have ever been invented. The chief
portion of the finest Point d' Angleterre was made in England. The
Honiton lace of to-day is but the exquisite Point d' Angleterre of the
Restoration period in a debased condition."* Mr. Armstrong, who
supports this view, considers that the ladder work alone which
appears so frequently both in the Honiton fabrics and in Point d' A
ngleterre is sufficient evidence that Point d' Angleterre was made in
Devonshire. Furthermore, it is held by those who accept the second
theory that the statement of the Venetian Ambassador carries very
little weight, since his knowledge was derived only from hearsay —
there ' A History of Hand-made Lace, p. 154, pub. in 1900. ' This
was written in igoo. Since that date great improvements have been
made in Honiton Lace.
 52 THE ROMANCE OF THE LACE PILLOW. being no
evidence that he ever set foot in Devonshire. In the courts of Louis
XIV. and Louis XV.^ in the period, that is to say, of hoops and
powder, Point d' Angleterre was in high favour, but it is mentioned in
almost every book that touches upon the fashions of that time. That
salacious gentleman, M. Jacques Casanova, writing of the year 1760
and describing his adventures in the inn of the Sword at Zurich,
where he pretended to be a butler in order to get into conversation
with a pretty lady, says : " I had tucked my ruffles, which were of
superb English Point (Point d' Angleterre a V aiguille) inside my
sleeves, but a bit of my cravat, which was of the same lace, peeped
through my button-hole. When I handed her her plate she noticed it.
' Wait, wait, a minute ! ' she said, ' What beautiful lace you wear! ' "
Of the dressy persons in Charles the Second's time none has
obtained more notice 20. Samuel Pepya. than Samuel Pepys. As his
famous 1 662 " Diary " shows, he regarded lace as a necessity. So
pleased is he on 8th October, 1662, with his " scallop " (lace collar or
band' with scalloped edges) that cost £^, that he straightway went
and ordered another at the same price. On " Lord's Day," October
19th, he writes : " Put on my first new lace band ; and so neat > A
band-box was originally a box to hold bands (lace collars).
 THE REIGN OF CHARLES II. 53 it is that I am resolved my
great expense shall be lace bands." But although Pepys was never
the man to deny himself in lace, he was apt (alas !) to fall into an
economical mood when his wife was concerned. " My wife and I," he
says on one occasion, " fell out about my not being willing to have
her gowne laced. . . At this she flounced away in a manner I never
saw her, nor which I could ever endure." She even went so far as to
say that she " would go and buy a new one and lace it and make me
pay for it." Indeed, poor man ! her tantrums "vexed " him " cruelly."
Mrs. Pepys, however, was outdone by Mrs. Loveit, in Etheridge's Sir
Fopling Flutter, who, in a fit of love and jealousy, broke " a dozen or
two of fans," tore "half a score points' in pieces," and destroyed
"hoods and knots without number." The Huguenot lace-makers, even
though they "were out of reach of their French 21. The enemies,
were by no means exempt Persecutions from persecution. The
nation had ot charies 11. warmly welcomed Charles II. and was on
the way to enshrining him in her large heart, but she soon
discovered that the temple was too big for the god. As we have
already noticed, most of the immigrants had joined themselves to
the English Nonconformists, whose manner of > Pieces of lace.
 54 THE ROMANCE OF THE LACE PILLOW. worship their
own closely resembled. In the reign of Charles II., however, Act after
Act of Parliament bore upon the Nonconformists and their Huguenot
friends with cruel severity ; and the jails were filled with men against
whom nothing could be alleged except that they were resolved to
worship God in their own fashion. In the Lambeth MSS. (Tenison),
"An Account of the Conventicles in Lincoln Diocese, 1669," we find
the following notice of Olney and neighbourhood : " Parishes and
Conventicles in them : Olney 2, at the house of Widow Tears •/
Newton Blossomville in private houses." As regards sect, &c., those
at Olney are called Anabaptists, and their number was " about 200."
Their quality is not described, but among their " Heads or Teachers "
were " Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Breeden, and James Rogers, Lace-buyers " —
this Mr. Gibbs being the Rev. John Gibbs who, after his ejectment, in
1660, from the benefice of Newport Pagnell, founded the Dissenting
causes at both Newport and Olney, where he lived by dealing in lace,
as a greater than he had lived by tentmaking. The number at
Newton Blossomville is put at fifty or sixty, who are described as "
meane people, but such as say they value not His Majesty's
clemency one pin "—which is just what • Evidently the "Joan Teare
widow " whose burial is recorded in Olney Church Register as having
taken place 8th July, 1672.
 THE REIGN OF CHARLES H. 55 a lace-maker, having so
much to do with pins, was very likely to say. It was a glorious age
for the bigot, the sycophant and the informer. Pretty nearly every
man with a conscience was either in momentary expectation of
arrest, in hiding or in prison. John Bunyan at this time was spinning
out of his holy soul, and in the very heart of the lace country, his
Pilgrim's Progress, but the iron Puritan prejudice against lace still
prevailed. Neither Christiana, nor Mercy, nor the " young woman
whose name was Dull," nor anybody else, male or female, in the
book either made lace, bought lace, or even mentioned lace. Yet
there must have been plenty of *' tawdry " on the stalls of Vanity
Fair, and we may fairly assume that my Lord Fair-speech wore a lace
collar round his oily throat, and Lady Feigning's daughter a laced
petticoat about her mincing feet. But the threat constantly
impending of fine or imprisonment for religion's sake was not the
only hardship the lace-makers Tokens. , , , ^, 1,1 1648—1679. had
to endure. They were daily hampered in their business transactions
owing to the shortage of small change. Half-pence and farthings
were nowhere to be had in any convenient number. This hardship,
however, was not confined to the lace-makers. The whole kingdom
suffered, and then some enterpriser hit on the expedient of
 56 THE ROMANCE OF THE LACE PILLOW. making his own
small change. The idea was copied, and in a few years every
prominent tradesman had his private mint. In the Gentleman's
Magazine for 1757 is a description of the coining apparatus with
which, though it was quite a simple affair, in a very short time many
hundreds of half-pence or farthings could be coined. Among the
tradesmen who issued these tokens were not only the lace-buyers,
but also the grocers, mercers, bakers, rope-makers and others. The
token of James Brierly, of Olney, who, as a deed' bearing his name
shows, was a lace-buyer, has on the obverse, "James Brierly, B. I.
M.;" and on the reverse, " Of Olney, 1658," and a pair of scales. As
regards the " B. I. M," B stands for Brierly, I for his own Christian
name, James, and M for his wife's Christian name, it being the
invariable custom for the token to bear the wife's initials as well as
the husband's. The scales show that he joined to lace-buying some
other occupation. Apparently he was a baker as well. He died in
1670.* The James Brierly referred to under date 1677 in the Journal
of George Fox, founder of the Society of Friends, was his son. A still
more interesting token, however, is that ' Preserved in the Cowper
Museum, Olney : Conveyance of property on 24 Feb., 1650, by
Richard Babbington of Turvey to James Brierly, lace-buyer, of Olney. '
The date of his burial as shown in the Olney Church Register was 28
July, 1670.
 THE REIGN OF CHARLES II. 57 of Peter Reynoldes, of
Buckingham, as it is adorned with a representation of the emblem of
his trade — a piece of lace. Moreover, as his name proves, he was of
Huguenot descent. On the obverse is, " Peter Reynoldes " and a strip
of lace ; on the reverse, " Of Bvckingham, 58, P. F. R." (See Plate 9.)
Another Buckingham token of a similar character has on the
obverse, " lohn Rennals, 1668," with a strip of lace, and the initials,
"I. E. R;" on the reverse, " Of Bvckingham, his halfepenny." Two lace
tokens hail from St. Neots, Huntingdonshire, their peculiarity being a
representation of a pillow used by two women, one on each side of
it. O. The overseers of. Their halfe peny. R. The Towne of St. Eeds.*
Two women, seated, making lace. O. The overseers of. Their halfe
peny. R. The Towne of St. Neots. Two women, seated, making lace.'
The ladies of Charles's court wore laced caps, laced aprons, laced
gloves, and petticoats "laced with rich lace at the sign of the ^ „ . , ,
Laced Shoe, bottom. 3 Colbertme" and other 1679. coarser kinds of
lace they spoke of > Old name of St. Neots. ' See Trade Tokens,
17th Century, by Wm. Boyne, revised by G. C. Williamson, 1889. »
Pepys. * An open lace with a square ground. It took its name from
its manufacturer, M. Colbert, Superintendent of 'the French Royal
Lace Manufacturers, See Chapter 2, Section 8.
 58 THE ROMANCE OF THE LACE PILLOW. only with disdain
and a toss of the head. In the London Gazette, 1677, Jan. 28 — 31,
appears the advertisement : " Stolen from the Vicarage house of
Amersham in Buckinghamshire an apron of needlework lace, the
middle being net work." The lax court beauties wheedled laced
gloves out of their royal lover ; similar fripperies were the perquisite
of the judge at the maiden assize ; while the fop gave himself airs in
the park or the public garden in gloves " well fringed, which reached
to his elbow." John Verney, of Claydon, on the occasion of his
wedding, gth June, 1680, sent " a payre of Green fringed Gloves" for
his brother, and " white and coUourd Lace Gloves " for his sister.' As
we have seen, the courtiers of the reign of James I. and Charles I.
wore high top boots lined with rich lace. The ladies were not slow to
imitate them, and by the time of Charles II. every kind of foot-gear
with pretensions had lace somewhere about it. In the possession of
Mr. T. Watson Greig of Glencarse" is a beautiful laced shoe that
belonged to a Miss Langley, who lived at this period. Made of natural
silk (and therefore of a pale yellow colour) it is most tastefully
embroidered, and it is trimmed with lace " of an intricate pattern and
delicate as a spider's web."* 1 Memoirs of the Verney Family, 1892,
Vol. IV., p. 250. ' There is a large coloured photograph of it in the
book of lllustraHans of Collections of Ladies' Old-Fashioned Shoes,
by T. Watson Greig of Glencarse. For our illustration we are indebted
to the kindnessof the Committee of the Northampton Public Library.
 THE REIGN OF CHARLES II. 59 (See Plate 5.) Shoe ties that
went under the name of " roses " and " riband roses " edged with
lace were also coquetries of the period. In the 17th and i8th
Centuries nearly all the tradesmen had wooden shop signs projecting
in front of their places of business, or signs carved in stone let into
the front of their houses, and the lace-dealers probably, both in the
Midlands and in London, displayed sign-boards or carvings indicative
of their calling. Among milliners' signs in London in the early 17th
Century were " The Fan," " The Crowned Fan," " The Hood and Scarf
Shope, Cornhill," and the " The Blue Boddice, in the Long Walk near
Christ Church Hospital." The lady of that period wore laced trimmed
tabs on her bodice and a laced scarf, and she carried a lace trimmed
folding fan. A shop in Chancery Lane, " The Laced Shoe," is
mentioned in an advertisement in the London Gazette, July 31 to
August 4, 1679. The Marchioness of Newcastle, in Sociable Letters
(1664) speaks (nose in the air) of a " Mrs. P. I.," previously a lady of
fashion, who, having become "a sanctified soul," left off curling her
hair, and regarded " laced shoes and galoshoes " as " steps to
pride," and fans and ribbons and the like as " Temptations of
Satan."' The peculiarity of these shoes which were supposed to work
so much havoc in the male heart, i& ' Sociable Letters, ist edit., p.
103.
 6o THE ROMANCE OF THE LACE PILLOW. that so many of
them were green or edged with green lace. In James the First's time
red was supposed to be the provocative colour. Thomas Wright, the
psychologist,' indeed, had it from physicians, that " red colours
moved and influenced the blood." Opinion, however, changed ; and
the passion for green in the shoe continued to the time of the Tatler.
Steele, in No. 143 of that periodical, reads quite a sermon on the
perils of looking at green lace, and goes so far as to declare, in his
arch way, that even the sight of it in a shoemaker's window created
" irregular Thoughts and Desires in the youth of this nation," and he
considered that " slippers with green lace and blue heels" were
equally inflammatory. These slippers were also called pantofles.
Burton (in Anatomy of Melancholy, 1621) says oddly, " It was
Judith's pantofles that ravished the eyes of Holofernes.'"' Sappho's
sandals of " rich Lydian work " played havoc with many a Greek
heart. Evidently the only safe course, when a pretty lady comes
along with embroidered or laced shoe-gear, is to look another way.
Nell Gwyn, as the unpaid bills found after her death' reveal, affected
" scarlet satin shoes with silver lace." In all this extravagance the
servant wenches, as Defoe tells us, imitated their mis• Writing in
1601. > See Judith x. 4, where the original is rendered, correctly, of
coarse, -" sandals;" s In 1687.
 THE REIGN OF CHARLES II. 6r tresses. When Joan comes
up from the country she has simple tastes and is satisfied with "
neats leathern shoes," but she has been scarcely a week in town
before this honest foot-gear is exchanged " for laced ones with high
heels,'" and she indulges in other extravagances to match ; and, if
expostulated with, "whip she is off" to some situation where she can
"prink up" without fear of censure. It was hard indeed to distinguish
the servant from the mistress. " I remember," adds Defoe, " I was
once put very much to the blush, being at a friend's house, and by
him required to salute the ladies, I kissed the chamber- jade into the
bargain, for she was as well dressed as the best. But I was soon
undeceived by a general titter, which gave me the utmost concern;
nor can I believe myself the only person who has made such a
mistake." What a predicament for a punctilious gentleman to find
himself in ! In the reign of Charles II., too, lace handkerchiefs were
the fashion. " Lost," reads an advertisement of 1672, "a lawn pocket
handkercher with a broad hem, laced round with a fine Point lace
about four fingers broad." ^ When the emotional heroine of an old
novel. The Garden of Love,^ shed tears " which trickled down her
sorrowful cheeks," one might suppose that the 1 Everybody's
Business is Nobody's Business, 1725, * London Gazette, Dec, 5 — 9,
167a, » P. 58.
 62 THE ROMANCE OF THE LACE PILLOW. next step would
be to sop them up with what she called her " pocket handkercher."
Not at all, for we are informed that she then (out of respect, one
supposes, for its edging of Point lace) " immediately dried them,
with fanning wind in her face to enliven her spirits." But
handkerchiefs, laced or plain, did have their uses, for if an attractive
young lady chanced to leave the casement of her window open, one
of her admirers would be sure to fling in a knotted handkerchief full
of sweetmeats. But not only were gloves, shoes, and handkerchiefs
set off with lace, garters were also bewitchingly adorned ; and in
order that the graces of the last should not be hidden from an
unhappy public, the lady very compassionately arranged that the
garter should have " long fluttering ends of ribbon " ' which allowed
the lace on it to peep out beneath her petticoat.* Where there's a
will there's a way. • See Ben Jonson : The Devil is an Ass. 2 The
petticoat was, of course, in those days an outside garment.
 CHAPTER VIII THE THIRD EXODUS Reign of James II. (See
Map, Plate ii.) 1685— 1689 As we have seen, Henry IV. of France
signed in I "598 the Edict of Nantes which 24. The -'^ Revocation
gave freedom of religion to the of the Edict __ _, , 1 t ■ 1 i of
Nantes. Huguenots. Jr* or long the J esuits had plotted and
schemed in order to lead Louis XIV. to persecute the Huguenots.
They partially attained their ends as early as 1682, and at last on
22nd October, 1685, they succeeded in inducing him to revoke the
Edict of Nantes.' But it pleased God to bring great good out of the
evil, for tens of thousands of persons, many of whom were skilled
lace-makers, flocked from Burgundy and Normandy into England,
most of the lacemakers finding their way to the lace towns and
villages of Bucks, Beds and Northants. The sufferings of these poor
people were frightful. Some fled by land and, by a miracle as it
were, escaping the vigilance of the dragoons and police, crossed the
frontier into Germany and the Low Countries. Others escaped by
sea, putting out • See The Huguenots, by Samuel Smiles, p. 183.
 64 THE ROMANCE OF THE LACE PILLOW. « from Havre,
Nantes, La Rochelle, and Bordeaux in trading ships, shallops, fishing
smacks, open boats — " any wretched werry." The masters of
merchant vessels hid them under bales of goods, in heaps of coals,
or in empty casks where they had only the bung-hole to breathe
through. Some of the girls and women disfigured their faces with
dyes, and feigned sickness, dumbness and even insanity. Some
disguised themselves as lacqueys. Some died in the passage ; others
were landed with wounded skins, but with whole and merry
consciences, at Southampton, Dartmouth and Plymouth. Many of
their Catholic fellow-countrymen pitied their fate and helped them to
escape, but at great risks to themselves, for any m3.n who was
caught succouring these unhappy people was sent to the galleys,
and any woman was shaved and imprisoned. The Huguenot
churches were demolished ; their pastors when takefi were
immediately executed, their flocks were harried and hunted like wild
beasts. .But faith upheld them, that wondrous power — " stronger
than any hellebore'"— which deprives the prison of its solitariness,
the stake of its horrors. One woman, who carried with her a little
casket of jewels — her sole fortune — no sooner reached the British
shore than she threw herself down and passionately kissed the
ground, exclaim' Samuel Ward, the Puritan divine. The roots of
hellebore were considered effectual against melancholy and
madness.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 20.17%
accurate

folate 12 MECHLIN PILLOW LACE. See p. 15. Victoria and

Albert Museum. (By permission of the Aittho) itics.) MECHLIN LACE,
made at Chesham, Bucks. The broad pattern was found on the
pillow of Mrs. Sulthery, who died in 1814. See p. 74. {Lent by Mrs.
Houe of Chesham.)
The text on this page is estimated to be only 26.93%
accurate

Plate IS NORTHAMPTONSHIRE POINT LACES. Upper : The

Duke's Garter. Made at East Haddon. Lower : Revolution Lace. See p.
212. Headside : Point Ground. Footside : Wire Ground (Kat Stitch).
This lace seems to have been first made in England after the French
Revolution of 1789. PART OF A COPE. (Lent by Miss Pope.)
 THE THIRD EXODUS. 65 ing : " Have I at last attained my
wishes ? Gracious God, I thank Thee for this deUverance from a
tyranny exercised over my conscience, and for placing me where
Thou alone art to re^n over it by Thy Word, till I shall finally lay
down my head upon this beloved earth ! " What a compliment to her
adopted country ! Most of the emigrants, however, came ashore
hungering and in rags. The English people crowded round them with
indignant and pitying hearts. They gave them a cheery welcoijie,
received them into their dwellings and handsomely relieved their
wants. The clergy in many towns made collections for them ; for
example under date 16 Feb., 1682, we find in the register of Clifton
Reynes near Olney, " collected for the French Protestants £2 10 o,"
and another collection for the same purpose was made in 1686. By
their skill, their intelligence, and their industry the emigrants richly
repaid this' country for her hospitality. There was scarcely a branch
of trade but at once felt the beneficial effects of this large influx of
experienced workers. Speaking of the lace industry in reference to
this exodus Defoe' observes that the people " are wonderfully
exercised and improved within these few years past." The
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes was the making not only of a
number of English towns » Tour, 1724 — 27. F
 66 THE ROMANCE OF THE LACE PILLOW. but also of Berlin
and other German cities, for the skilled workmen who quitted France
carried with them into the neighbouring countries their trade
fc'^crets as well as their money. " What can I do to show my
gratitude to you ? " said on one occasion Louis XV. to Frederick the
Great. " Promulgate a second Revocation of the Edict of Nantes,"
was the arch reply. If the reign of Charles II. was the age of the lace
collar, that of James II. was the Lace' Cravat ^S^ of ^he lace cravat.
(See Plate g.) Fontange Discarding their own hair, men had taken to
flowing wigs with long curls that completely hid the greater part of
the collar, which, in consequence, gave place to the cravat. James
himself led the fashion. Sir Edmund Verney,' on receiving some lace
made at Claydon (Bucks) by the daughter of pne of his tenants, at
once ordered it to be made into a cravat of the latest pattern. " The
Bonny Cravat " is, or was, the sign of an inn at Woodchurch,
Tenterden, Kent, and the old song, " Jenny, come tie 'my bonny
cravat," was sung on festive occasions. While the gentleman's lace
collar shrank into the narrow cravat, the ladies' lace cap, which had
flourished particularly in the reign of Charles II., took upon itself
n^w proportions. The change had its origin in a pretty incident. The
frail, but \ 1 Memoirs of the Vemfy Family, Vol. IV., p. 213.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookfinal.com