Throughout England’s early modern period, rape is seen through a lens that focuses on a violation of property, reputation, and honour, as well as an assault committed against an individual. In Sir Matthew Hale’s treatise, Historia Placitorum Coronae, the seventeenth century jurist asserts that rape requires “carnal knowledge against her will,” as well as penetration without consent, and under statute law rape is considered a felony, punishable by death. Hale's treatise provides a contemporary definition of rape in the seventeenth century, and this helps to illuminate what constitutes rape during the early modern period of England. Hale states that a woman’s husband can’t be convicted of rape, and if a man under the age of 14 is brought up on
…show more content…
Rudolph argues that Hale’s interpretation of the law ignores female victims, and instead the law is geared to protect “family interests” and “male property”. Furthermore, Rudolph notes that rape is often seen as a question of female sexuality, and included the "victim’s desire, resistance, morality, and will” and that the law “discounted” a women’s consent. Whether or not Hale’s interpretation of the law is morally correct or not, and whether his treatise is fair or unfair, his contemporary viewpoint is valuable because of what the law says about society at large. Society was anxious about sexual assault due to the inherently sinister nature of the crime, and because rape could result in illegitimate birth’s and thus illegitimate inheritance. Rudolph points out that the “rhetoric of rape” makes an appearance in political language, to decry tyranny and oppression, and rape plays an important role in theatrical dramatizations, as well as literature. Rudolph claims that the violation of a woman is “tantamount to the violation of life, liberty, and estate” and this is a fair assessment due to the negative impact on the victim, her family, and the community they reside in. The courts of England view rape as a threat to property, order, and reputation, and also see the possibility of rape resulting …show more content…
Consent was extremely difficult to prove, and witness testimonials were often reliant on reputation rather than facts. Furthermore, if a victim of rape did not resist, or was bribed to consent to the heinous acts, it became even harder to convict an offender, due to the narrow definition of what did and did not constitute rape. Reputation played a prominent role in determining guilt or innocence, as William Row’s case which occurred on December 7th, 1687, shows. He is apart of the parish of St. James Clerkenwell and he is accused of raping Elizabeth Beaver, who is between eight to ten years of age. Despite her being in rough condition, he is acquitted due her not complaining of the crime straight away, and because her parents have a bad reputation, and Row is able to get several witnesses to testify in approval of his character. As further evidence of the role reputation played in the English courts, on February 26th, 1679, an unnamed man of “good reputation and wealth” is charged with raping a woman aged between fourteen and fifteen. Three months pass before she presses charges, two surgeons and a midwife inspect her, and find no evidence of foul play, and like Row, this unnamed man has numerous witnesses testify in agreement with his good character,
Rudolph argues that Hale’s interpretation of the law ignores female victims, and instead the law is geared to protect “family interests” and “male property”. Furthermore, Rudolph notes that rape is often seen as a question of female sexuality, and included the "victim’s desire, resistance, morality, and will” and that the law “discounted” a women’s consent. Whether or not Hale’s interpretation of the law is morally correct or not, and whether his treatise is fair or unfair, his contemporary viewpoint is valuable because of what the law says about society at large. Society was anxious about sexual assault due to the inherently sinister nature of the crime, and because rape could result in illegitimate birth’s and thus illegitimate inheritance. Rudolph points out that the “rhetoric of rape” makes an appearance in political language, to decry tyranny and oppression, and rape plays an important role in theatrical dramatizations, as well as literature. Rudolph claims that the violation of a woman is “tantamount to the violation of life, liberty, and estate” and this is a fair assessment due to the negative impact on the victim, her family, and the community they reside in. The courts of England view rape as a threat to property, order, and reputation, and also see the possibility of rape resulting …show more content…
Consent was extremely difficult to prove, and witness testimonials were often reliant on reputation rather than facts. Furthermore, if a victim of rape did not resist, or was bribed to consent to the heinous acts, it became even harder to convict an offender, due to the narrow definition of what did and did not constitute rape. Reputation played a prominent role in determining guilt or innocence, as William Row’s case which occurred on December 7th, 1687, shows. He is apart of the parish of St. James Clerkenwell and he is accused of raping Elizabeth Beaver, who is between eight to ten years of age. Despite her being in rough condition, he is acquitted due her not complaining of the crime straight away, and because her parents have a bad reputation, and Row is able to get several witnesses to testify in approval of his character. As further evidence of the role reputation played in the English courts, on February 26th, 1679, an unnamed man of “good reputation and wealth” is charged with raping a woman aged between fourteen and fifteen. Three months pass before she presses charges, two surgeons and a midwife inspect her, and find no evidence of foul play, and like Row, this unnamed man has numerous witnesses testify in agreement with his good character,