The Myth of Early Marriage

The Myth of Early Marriage

Over at Positive Liberty, Jason Kuznicki makes the claim that previous generations had no problem with very young sex, based on cherry picking the data:

Consider the case of the great Revolutionary War hero and classical liberal, the Marquis de Lafayette. Lafayette, at 14 was engaged to his future wife, then 12. Two years later they married. As a wedding gift the 16-year-old was made a captain and given command of a company in the Nailles Dragoons when he turned eighteen, a command he accepted. At about this time Lafayette also became a father. Instilled with a belief in radical liberalism Lafayette recruited some friends and the band head to the American colonies to help end the rule of the British monarchy. At 19 he was made a Major General by the American forces. Under today’s laws General Lafayette would have been arrested after his engagement as a sex offender, given the age of his wife.

Jonathan Rowe, who also posts at Positive Liberty, has frequently argued that marriages as young as 13 have been so long accepted in Christianity as part of his defense that there's nothing intrinsically wrong about sex with young teenagers. (Rowe is homosexual, of course, so you have to expect that kind of an argument.) UPDATE: Jonathan Rowe says: "Rather I noted Judeo-Christian tradition DIDN'T seem to frown on marriage (and hence sex) with young teens (13-14) but that we generally know better know. "

Rodney Stark's book about the rise of Christianity points out that Roman law allowed marriage (not just betrothal) of girls as young as 12 years old--in a time when puberty was often delayed by poor nutrition. (And the law was not always followed.) Christianity, by strongly encouraging delaying of marriage until 18 or so, dramatically reduced both the physical and emotional trauma of too early sexualization of girls. Stark's view is that this is one of the reasons why Christianity grew so fast: marriages were less likely to cause physical damage that would impair later reproduction.

I've recently been reading a number of social histories of Britain, and while there are marriages in the late Middle Ages as young as 13, 16-18 is far more typical.

In Colonial New England, I've read that marriage age was typically late teens for women, early 20s for men. I have before me John E. Soule, comp., George Soule of the Mayflower and His Descendants for Four Generations, 3rd ed., (General Society of Mayflower Descendants, 1999). What happens when I look through it for marriage information? In some cases, there is no marriage date. In a few cases, we know that they married before a certain age because we know their marriage year, but there is uncertainty about the birth year. In many cases, we have a birth year, and a marriage year.

John Soule: first married at 22.

George Soule II: first married at 19.

Mary Soule: married at 22.

Elizabeth Soule: married at 22 or 23.

Patience Soule: married at 18.

Rebecca Soule: married at 31.

Sarah Soule: before 20.

Rachel Soule: 25.

Aaron Soule: before 35.

Benjamin Soule: 27.

Moses Soule: 32.

John Soule II: 26.

Joseph Soule: 32.

Josiah Soule: 25.

Joshua Soule: 26.

Nathaniel Soule: 27.

Sylvanus Soule: 25.

Jacob Soule: 23.

George Soule III: >29.

William Soule: >20.

Nathan Soule: >24.

Mary Soule: 19.

Sarah Soule: 38.

Francis West: 37.

Richard West: 29.

Martha West: 27.

I obviously haven't gone through the whole book, but I think this is enough to demonstrate that the notion of young teen marriages in the Colonial New England period isn't particularly defensible. Now, I've picked my own family tree because I have the data readily at hand. But these weren't necessarily a bunch of saints. Elizabeth Soule, for example, who married at 22 or 23 in 1667 or 1668, was fined for fornication with a Nathaniel Church in March 1662/3. Then she sued Church for failure to marry her, and won. "On 2 July 1667 Elizabeth Soule was again charged with fornication with no male partner named."