I just had to respond to "Snow's" message below as follows: > >>>It would seem that Phobe accepted the infant deaths as a common > occurrance. Something we would view as unthinkable today.<<< > > I've been on various genealogy lists for about 5 years, now. One thing I > see on almost all of them, time after time, is the question, "Why were they so > cold and undemonstrative?" Usually speaking of grandparents, sometimes > parents. My sister has asked me the same question. One of my grandmothers lost two > children under the age of 1, the other lost a little sister, about a year old, > when she was 13. If you knew that the chances were 50/50 that you were going > to lose each child, how much of yourself could you invest in that child? "Snow" I know I really know your name but I just can't remember it right now. I apologize. Over MANY years of personal genealogical research I've followed the number of infant deaths of my ancestors and those of their brothers and sister's families. And with each death of the infant my heart went out to the parents who had just lost a baby or a toddler. Although they may have appeared cold and undemonstrative IN PUBLIC, I know of no diaries where a mother or father wrote down her/his true feelings of horrible grief over the loss. No doubt the whole community suffered along with them in their loss but it was rarely spoken of in public, only in private. Regarding your last comment, "If you knew that the chances were 50/50 that you were going to lose each child, how much of yourself could you invest in that child?" I think I might be able to answer that question. Every single baby was precious and loved unconditionally. Yes the parents knew what the overall odds were of every child growing to maturity but they were willing to gamble on those odds and hope and pray that that child would beat the odds. Some babies didn't beat the odds but more babies did. Hopefully that might answer your question. vee