LAUSR

together reveal the tremendous complexity and variability of sibling relationships, even within one family. Chapter 8 narrates the experiences of the Quaker businessman William Stout (1665–1752), exemplifying the mutually “caring and generous” (141) treatment of siblings. Chapter 9 paints a less harmonious picture, centered on Samuel Pepys, a man who took seriously his obligations as elder brother but showed little affection for these “troublesome and unsatisfactory” siblings (153), especially his “ugly sister,” Pall. Chapter 10, “Trouble with Brothers,” explores the difficulties encountered by the gentlewomen Alice Thornton (1626–1707) and Dorothy Osborne (1627–1695), who faced either financial hardship or romantic frustrations due to the actions of their male siblings. Chapter 11 focuses on the unhappy relationships of James Yonge (1647–1721), a Plymouth surgeon, and John Cannon (1684–1743), a schoolteacher; these case studies demonstrate the devastating effects of parental favoritism on siblings’ feelings toward each other. Finally, Chapter 12 explores the “exquisite unanimity and harmony” enjoyed between the lawyer and politician Roger North (1653–1734) and his brothers (194). In this second section, Capp provides fascinating insights into the idiosyncrasies of particular individuals, such as the spider-collecting academic John North, who was afraid of the dark and once mistook a white towel for a ghost (187). Capp’s underlying argument is that sibling relationships present something of a paradox. In some cases, interactions varied significantly according to birth order, gender, and social status, a finding thatmakes sensegiven the cultural dominanceof the traditionsofprimogeniture andpatriarchy. Eldest sons from the upper echelons, for example, faced greater pressure than did younger siblings to provide financial assistance and to help in the search for potential marriage partners. At the same time, however, there were innumerable occasions when siblings’ roles overlapped: for instance, sisters of all ranks might lend money to their elder brothers in times of need, while younger sons were sometimes involved in the pursuit of a spouse for an elder brother. Many other duties could be fulfilled—or neglected—by any sibling, such as looking after orphaned nephews and nieces, mobilizing contacts for career progression, providing companionship and emotional support, and sheltering a vulnerable sibling frompolitical or civil danger. The inevitable consequence of this overlap is a degree of repetition between chapters. Another striking finding in this study concerns the fluidity of the concept of siblinghood and its great reliance on other family connections as models for how brothers and sisters should interact. For instance, older siblings were often described as “quasi-parents” to younger ones (35, 72, 137, 164, 181), while sisters and brothers who assisted each another in domestic or financial matters assumed the roles of “quasi-wife” or husband (182, 188). One is left wondering what was unique about the sibling concept or whether it was simply an iteration of the parental or spousal ideal. In short, The Ties that Bind is a memorable and illuminating portrait of family relationships that brings to life the true complexity and variability of sibling interactions in early modern England.