Striking a Balance: Sibling Emotionality and the Negotiation of Power in an Eighteenth-Century Noble Family of the Austrian Netherlands

Introduction

In 1782, Marie-Félicité of Merode, an unmarried noblewoman living in the Imperial Abbey of Thorn, near Roermond on the Meuse river, lost her sister Marie-Thérèse, who was likewise unmarried and resided at the time in the hospital of Soignies in Hainaut. With this loss, Marie-Félicité was the last one left of her family, which originally counted six siblings. She wrote to her sister-in-law:

The loss of the only sister that remained for me in this world is very painful to me […]. I have to resign myself to God's will, before whom I dare to hope that she will find grace and mercy. It would be a consolation for me to still have a sister, but because the Lord has deprived me of this satisfaction, I beg you to be willing to replace her by granting me your friendship. ¹

As Marie-Félicité was unmarried, the death of her last remaining sibling left her alone, with no close family to turn to. The fact that she asked her sister-in-law for support, hoping that she would be a sister for her when she had none left, illustrates the important role siblings played in the lives of unmarried persons. Some family historians, who sought to decenter the nuclear family as the base of social life in European history, concluded that women who did not marry constructed a social network different from that of married women. ² Since unmarried persons did not have the opportunity to form a household of their own and lacked the familial connections of in-laws and descendants, their social safety net consisted mostly of their siblings, extended kin such as aunts and uncles, and friends. Siblings, however, proved to be the most important link in the social sphere of unmarried persons, since they were connected by a shared upbringing and stayed connected throughout most of their lives. Moreover, the importance of the sibling connection was never challenged or replaced by a spouse or children. ³ In fact, the relationship with their siblings was the only lifelong connection within the close family for unmarried persons. ⁴

Traditionally, when historians looked at sibling relations in the ancien régime, they most often considered siblings to be “purely economically oriented individuals,” whose relationship was only characterized by a struggle for an equal share in the inheritance or for a suitable dowry. ⁵ Because familial structures were organized hierarchically and because brothers and sisters were placed in this hierarchy according to their gender and age, historians only considered conflict between siblings as a frame of inquiry. Hostility between the eldest son, who in systems of primogeniture was the only inheritor, and his younger siblings, mostly his brothers, was seen as a given. In the last fifteen years, however, more attention has been given to the deep emotional connections between siblings, while still acknowledging the hierarchical nature of such relations. Historians have begun to see the feelings of solidarity and love that existed between brothers and sisters who were naturally connected since childhood, being “children of common parents.” ⁶ Based on this common heritage, siblings formed an exclusive group in which mutual solidarity and affection was expected by brothers and sisters, but was also the norm in Early Modern society as a whole. Indeed, contemporaries considered it unnatural for siblings to be on poor terms with each other. ⁷ In the eighteenth century, especially, feelings of intrafamilial affection became increasingly important in what David Sabean and Christopher Johnson define as a transitional period of European kinship systems. Between 1750 and 1850, they see a transition from siblingship to siblinghood. The former is a typically Early Modern and functional connection characterized by hierarchy and a focus on patrilineal descent; the latter is a “state of being” in which the old hierarchies of inheritance became less explicit and the emotional connections shifted from functional to sentimental. ⁸

The study of these emotional ties is even more imperative for unmarried persons, because siblings were their most important relations in the family. They relied on siblings during most of their adult lives for material and emotional support, while latent hierarchies of gender and age structured the family modes of power. ⁹ Because unmarried persons did not have a typical nuclear family of their own where they were supported by their spouses or were able to support themselves, they stayed dependent on their siblings, mainly the eldest brother, to get by materially and financially. This was particularly true for noble families, who had much to distribute. For unmarried persons, especially women, the lack of independence was at odds with the expected harmony and equality among siblings. The question arises what the emotional dynamics within the sibling group of unmarried persons looked like, and in what ways these connections shaped and were shaped by family life in the eighteenth century.

In this article, the concept of sibling emotionality is introduced to inquire into these issues. Sibling emotionality is defined here as the emotional dynamics that existed within a sibling group. More specifically, these dynamics consisted of the division of affection between the siblings, including performing emotional tasks such as giving advice or consolation, and the opportunity to express feeling. The ways in which affection was divided and emotions could be expressed was tied up with existing modes of (emotional) power within the family and was structured according to existing hierarchies of gender, age, and marital status. ¹⁰ At the same time, sibling emotionality can be seen as a mechanism for governing and negotiating these internal family hierarchies, since the expression of emotion within a fixed framework of power might, according to Broomhall, “disrupt contemporary understandings of household authority.” ¹¹ As such, emotion and emotional expression in this article is seen as a kind of practice: acts that embody as well as regulate the existing modes of power within the family.

To study sibling emotionality, the Merode siblings mentioned above will serve as a case study. The six brothers and sisters, Jean-Guillaume-Augustin (1722–63), Jeanne-Christine (1724–69), Marie-Félicité (1728–87), Philippe-Maximilien (1729–73), Marie-Thérèse (1730–82), and Marie-Josèphe (1732–67), were the children of Field Marshal Jean-Philippe-Eugène of Merode (1674–1732) and his second wife Charlotte of Nassau-Hadamar (1704–40). The four sisters all remained unmarried, most likely due to the unfortunate financial circumstances of the family at the time, and they all lived as canonesses in noble chapters and abbeys across France, the Austrian Netherlands and the Holy Roman Empire. The two brothers, on the other hand, were married and resided in the family castles in Brussels, Merode, Westerlo, or Pietersheim (in present day Lanaken, Belgian Limburg). As the siblings were geographically separated most of the time, they maintained a lively and relatively well-preserved correspondence with each of their siblings. ¹² Through these letters, they stayed in contact, exchanged information, and cultivated their emotional connection. In this way, the siblings formed a symbolic household that did not share a residence, but did have common material, social, and emotional concerns. ¹³ The correspondence resembles an intimate group conversation, and sending letters was ultimately a form of affection. ¹⁴ Scrutinizing the form and content of these letters, with special attention to the expressions of emotion, while always recognizing the norms and regulations of the genre, reveals the emotional dynamics in this symbolic household and discloses the modes of (emotional) power that existed between the four unmarried Merode sisters and their brothers.

Being a Noble Sibling in the Eighteenth Century

The Merode siblings were born into a distinguished family that has its roots in the thirteenth century. Their father, Jean-Philippe-Eugène of Merode, was a high ranking military man and moved in the circle of the Austrian Emperor. Nevertheless, the financial situation of the house of Merode left much to be desired. ¹⁵ Burdened by debt, Jean-Philippe-Eugène married twice, hoping to regain some financial security and to ensure the male succession of his estate. While his first marriage with Marie-Thérèse of Pignatelli only produced a daughter, he remarried after Marie-Thérèse's death to Charlotte, princess of Nassau-Hadamar, in 1721. ¹⁶ Charlotte gave the field marshal two sons and four daughters. Since he was mainly concerned with familial honor and continuity, his eldest son, Jean-Guillaume-Augustin, was very dear to him. He wrote: “My son is my best personal property.” ¹⁷ His daughters, on the other hand, were a nuisance to him, he wrote, only costing him money and contributing nothing to the family. ¹⁸ Their father did not care for the girls' education, believing too much ambition would harm them. They would only end up in a convent or married into another family, where they would solely concern themselves with keeping house. ¹⁹ The young girls were taught reading, writing, and etiquette, while the boys received further intellectual education as well as schooling in music and dance. The sisters’ education did not match the norm for noble girls in this period, who normally received additional instruction in religion, morality, maths, and domestic skills such as sewing and cooking. ²⁰ The four Merode sisters were thus placed second to their brothers from birth.

In childhood and youth, sons and daughters learnt what it meant to be a sibling. They learnt that they were emotionally and socially interdependent and would remain so throughout their lives. ²¹ Based on the privileged connection of siblings, sharing the same values and memories, a sibling group was a unity in which friendship and solidarity was cultivated from a young age. The members of this exclusive group enjoyed “special privileges among themselves.” ²² Amy Harris, who wrote extensively on sibling relations in Georgian England, characterizes the relationships between brothers and sisters as an “alliance of equals, stripped of the patron-client attitude in other friendships” and as a consequence they were not in themselves hierarchically organized. ²³ What is more, harmony and unanimity within the household became an ideal image in the course of the Early Modern period, which siblings were expected to strive for. ²⁴

The situation of the young Merode siblings, however, was somewhat different from what Harris describes for two reasons. Firstly, they became orphaned when they were still children, with the death of their father in 1732 and their mother in 1740. Jean-Guillaume-Augustin, the eldest, was obliged to presume the role of paterfamilias, which he appeared to have done even before he came of age. His siblings were thus no longer his equal, but his subordinate, and he was in charge of their well-being. In 1743, for example, Jeanne-Christine, being the eldest girl, wrote to Jean-Guillaume-Augustin to convince him of the importance of a proper education for her younger sister Marie-Félicité, nicknamed Félix in the letters, who was fifteen at the time:

My dear aunt of Nassau [Félix's guardian] has also told me that she would like to know what your intentions are regarding the teacher of my dear sister Félix, to know if you would agree that she learn to play the harpsichord and to dance, which she very much needs. It seems to me that one cannot neglect the opportunity. ²⁵

The eldest brother and sister were indeed often responsible for their younger siblings after their parents had both died, acting as surrogate parents and seeing to their upbringing and education. ²⁶ However, Jean-Guillaume-Augustin seemed unwilling to provide for his younger siblings. After Jeanne-Christine received a letter from him stating that he was not going to pay for Félix's teacher, she was distraught to find the affection of her brother towards his sisters lacking. She wrote to his secretary, who acted as a confidant for the sisters ²⁷ :

I am very surprised to read in my brother's letter that he decided to take my sister Félix away [from the abbey of Mons, where she was being educated]. So it has been decided that one wants to plunge her even deeper into misery by not permitting her an education. I am very sensitive to this because of the friendship that I have for her. […] My brother is lord and master, but I would have judged his feelings towards us to be more affectionate than to begrudge his sister Félix […] an education befitting a person of rank. ²⁸

Influenced only by Jeanne-Christine, who took upon herself the agency of writing to Jean-Guillaume-Augustin about her displeasure, he decided that Félix could stay in Mons. ²⁹

Because of the eldest brother's new position in the family, his younger siblings were now subordinate to him, especially his sisters because of their gender and, later in life, because of their marital status. Consequently, their relationships were characterized by hierarchy rather than equality. Broomhall and Van Gent, who extensively studied the correspondences of the children of William of Orange, note that the paterfamilias figure “held ultimate material and political power […] to whom other family members applied for support and guidance.” ³⁰ As a consequence, “if he did not want to act, he did not have to.” ³¹ In this way, the relationship of the younger Merode siblings to Jean-Guillaume-Augustin, and later to Philippe-Maximilien after the former's death, can be regarded as strictly hierarchical. Harris's idea of a sibling group as an “alliance of equals” does not seem to correspond to the reality of the Merode siblings. ³²

A second reason for the difference with Harris's ideal of harmony is that the young Merode siblings did not really enjoy the shared upbringing which Harris considers crucial for the formation of a natural kind of affection. From a very young age, the sisters were housed in different abbeys or noble chapters across France and the Holy Roman Empire. Jeanne-Christine and Marie-Thérèse held a prebendaryship in the Abbey of Maubeuge from 1734 onwards (Marie-Thérèse was only 4 years old at the time), Marie-Josèphe in the women's chapter of the collegiate St. Waudru Church in Mons from 1739 onwards and Félix in the Imperial Abbey of Thorn from 1744. ³³ This distance surely was not only physical but would also have been felt emotionally. Despite these dynamics, the Merode siblings did in fact recognize Harris's ideal of harmony. They would often call upon the expectations of solidarity in their letters when asking for advice or help, appealing to brotherly or sisterly love or defending the harmony between them. Even when their relationships became more and more discordant in later life, the sisters held on to the ideal of intrafamilial harmony, often expressing the hope they could reconcile “like the brother and sister that we are.” ³⁴

In adulthood, the two Merode brothers made a career in the military and were promoted at court in Vienna. For example, Philippe-Maximilien was appointed Chamberlain of the Holy Roman Emperor at the age of sixteen. This honorary title heightened the eminent character of his family. ³⁵ Both brothers were also able to marry into other wealthy and honorable families. In 1742, Jean-Guillaume-Augustin married Eléonore of Rohan, a descendant of one of the most prominent noble families in France, with whom he had a daughter, Louise. When he died in 1763, Philippe-Maximilien inherited the estate, after he had married Marie-Cathérine of Merode-Rubempré. ³⁶ The couple had three daughters and one son.

Unlike their brothers, the four Merode sisters did not have the opportunity to marry and remained in their respective abbeys or chapters. As canonesses, they did not take monastic vows and were not bound by rules of enclosure or poverty. ³⁷ They each had a private residence, where they could hire servants, and their lifestyle was more secular than religious, often making lengthy trips, attending the theatre or receiving visitors in their homes. For most noble women, the abbey or chapter was a temporary abode in anticipation of a marriage. Others, like the Merode sisters, who did not have the opportunity to find a husband, remained canoness for the rest of their lives. ³⁸ As never-married women, they were placed one step lower in the social hierarchy of the family. Because of this, they were dependent on their brothers for financial support. In the marriage contract of their parents and in their respective wills, an annual allowance was arranged for the sisters in case they would not marry, to be paid by the male heir or their guardians. ³⁹ Jean-Guillaume-Augustin and Philippe-Maximilian oftentimes failed to pay the annuities, forcing the sisters to speak up and renegotiate their inferior position.

The ideal image of siblings who are equal in a harmonious relationship was thus overtaken by reality, as there existed a “complex relationship between expectations and behavior.” ⁴⁰ Inherent social hierarchies of gender and age, mainly with regards to education and property, eroded the harmony among siblings and formed a “key tension in brother–sister relations.” ⁴¹ The paradox of expected emotional equality and real social inequality among siblings was only magnified by the nobility of the Merode siblings. Preserving the noble family heritage was a priority. After the death of the paterfamilias, the eldest son was the sole heir at the top of the family hierarchy. In this system of primogeniture, his younger brothers were to inherit nothing and his sisters were in his care until they married, or if they did not, until they died. Because of the unmarried state of the four sisters, they remained dependent on their brother, mainly for financial support. The law of succession and gendered societal inequality determined the internal hierarchy among siblings, with the eldest son at the top, and the system of primogeniture strained their relationships. ⁴²

These modes of power that existed within the family gave rise to “emotional power dynamics.” ⁴³ These dynamics structured the distribution of positive and negative emotions within the household and the possibilities to express these feelings towards some siblings, but not to others. For Goossens and Verberckmoes, the emotional foundations and expressions of familial ties were a crucial factor of noble identities in the eighteenth century, because the connectedness between family members was an important element in the noble family strategy. ⁴⁴ Indeed, cooperation among noble siblings was essential for the political survival of the dynasty. ⁴⁵ Therefore, it was expected of noble siblings to get along, even though their relationships were all the more strained due to fixed relations of power. The emotional implications of this imbalance between equality and inequality are important to better understand the nature of noble sibling relations, and to sketch the ways in which the Merode sisters handled the imbalance as unmarried noblewomen.

Sibling Emotionality: Power, Unity, and the Roots of Conflict

Siblings remained emotionally connected during their entire lives, however ambiguous or strained the relationships were due to unequal modes of power. ⁴⁶ Within this framework of connectedness, brothers and sisters held certain obligations towards each other and privileges among themselves. Harris defines this reciprocity as sibling economics: the symbolic economy of the fictive household of siblings in which support was exchanged. Early Modern siblings tried to keep this economy in equilibrium through a reciprocal transaction of money, care, and social credit. This economic labor was crucial to maintain the harmony within the family and the well-being of its members. ⁴⁷ The ways in which siblings struck the balance—who was favored over the others—was rooted in what Harris calls sibling politics, related to Broomhall and Van Gent's modes of power: the division of power based on hierarchies of gender, birth order, property rights, and marital status. ⁴⁸ These factors determined the relative position of siblings in the family hierarchy and the possibilities for individuals to negotiate their position. By mediating the family modes of power, “siblings made sense of the hierarchies of their gender, birth order, and marital status in making claims for the equality they expected from one another.” ⁴⁹

While Harris's concepts are valuable for the study of sibling relations, it is possible to extend these notions by including the expression and experience of emotions. Siblings were not only responsible for material or financial support, but they were also expected to perform emotional duties by giving emotional support and to equally divide affection among themselves. This sibling emotionality was influenced by sibling economics and sibling politics, as the distribution of power was linked with the possibility to give and receive support and to express feeling. Because of this, sibling emotionality was inherently both harmonious and discordant, expecting an equal share in the circulation of support while constantly negotiating unbalanced sibling politics.

Conclusion

The case of the Merode siblings illustrates how sibling relations in the eighteenth century were characterized by important areas of tension. In this context, the concept of sibling emotionality is introduced, defined as the emotional dynamics within a sibling group, consisting of the division of affection, including performing emotional tasks and the possibility to express certain emotions to certain people. Sibling emotionality was structured according to internal family hierarchies of gender, birth order, and marital status. In contrast to these hierarchical emotional dynamics, intrafamilial unity and harmony was expected as siblings counted on unconditional and reciprocal material, social, and emotional support. Consequently, sibling emotionality was inherently both discordant and harmonious, characterized by the often difficult balancing act of demanding equality by challenging existing hierarchies while also maintaining the expected unity.

The correspondence of the six Merode siblings illustrates how sibling emotionality influenced and was influenced by family hierarchies and the ideal of brotherly and sisterly love. Their relationships were complex and ambiguous, often (but not always) structured along gendered lines. The Merode sisters were tightly-knit during most of their lives and were able to openly discuss their feelings. The relationship with their brothers was more equivocal, because the unmarried sisters remained their inferior and because their brothers found it difficult to lend the expected support. This was the case, for example, when Jean-Guillaume-Augustin refused to send the sisters’ annuity or when Philippe-Maximilien would not agree to a compromise regarding Marie-Josèphe's inheritance. Because of their brothers’ behavior, the sisters thought it necessary to negotiate family modes of power by demanding an equal division of affection and support. Within this field of tension, the sisters tried to maintain harmony, but were unable to do so in the discordant atmosphere created by their inferior position and the imbalanced sibling economics.

Moreover, the Merode sibling emotionality was highly flexible, with internal dynamics changing and shifting when power was renegotiated or when certain events took place. While Jean-Guillaume-Augustin's relationship with his siblings had always been difficult, being the paterfamilias and sole inheritor, Philippe-Maximilien was on better terms with his sisters at first. He comforted and assisted them, for example by sending them their annuity or by at least trying to fulfil his brotherly duties. Nevertheless, the sisters felt increasingly frustrated when he let them down time and again, to the point where they found it necessary to go to court in order to force him to extend the expected support. Among the sisters, too, relations could take a turn, as Félix's sudden rejection of Marie-Thérèse demonstrates. This indicates that sibling emotionality was not exclusively governed by internal hierarchies, but that other factors, such as personality or circumstance, influenced intrafamilial dynamics as well.

The expression of emotion was an important mechanism for the Merode siblings to negotiate imbalanced power relations. In their letters, they recognized the ideal of harmony and often explicitly appealed to it in an attempt to keep the peace, for example by stating that they should reconcile “like the brother and sister that we are.” ⁹⁷ Moreover, the sisters used the expression of friendship, affection or unity to indirectly hold their brothers accountable for their inability or unwillingness to provide the expected support, making sure to remind them of the affection they were due. Among the sisters, the expression of love and shared emotion was a means to cultivate their connectedness and to form a united front against their brothers, as Marie-Thérèse and Félix did in the dispute with Philippe-Maximilien over Marie-Josèphe's inheritance. In contrast, assertions of strong discontent or sadness towards their brothers directly negotiated the status quo of sibling emotionality, as the sisters disobliged them by refusing to be dismissed and by challenging the emotional power dynamics that existed within the sibling group. In this area of emotional friction, it was important for brothers and sisters to find a balance in order to preserve the unity that connected them and was expected throughout their lives. Marie-Thérèse summed up the tensions between expected harmony and perceived inequality in a letter to the family's secretary, acknowledging how painful it often was for her to strike the balance:

It is exasperating for sisters that their brothers care so little for them, while they are put in chapters from their early childhood onwards, and that they become the victim of the unity that is supposed to be maintained in the family by renouncing their rights with their hands over their eyes, even when they have nothing to live on, according to the rank and birth that God has given to us. ⁹⁸