3 ms·

> does it mean that in 1543 near Zurich this right was still being upheld I don't know. I am just saying: (1) there are rennaissance and early modern authors

> does it mean that in 1543 near Zurich this right was still being upheld I don't know. I am just saying: (1) there are rennaissance and early modern authors who want to make us believe this was common and usual and happening widely during the 'dark ages' (likely from a mixture of anti-medieval sentiment and pornographic fantasy, but I am speculating). (2) there are 20th Century and contemporary authors, who want to make us believe this was just a renaissance invention with no basis in fact whatsoever. (3) given the available sources (like some religious texts, like the 1543 document I linked, like a very few other sources) and what we know about power dynamics and the 'justice system' (lol) in the European Middle Ages (there were very few limits on what a lord could do to local peasants without repercussions), probably neither is true. (4) It likely happened, and it likely happened not just thrice over 1000 years. But it also wasn't something happening everywhere and all the time, and as a codified law. It wasn't "part of the package" of being a lord, with everyone just shrugging, saying "that's the way things are and ought to be". (5) the idea of a culturally-homogeneous medieval Europe is laughable, before printing and modern-ish communication networks, customs were very likely more varied than they were in early modern times. The only (exaggeration!) trans-european force were the Catholic (which back then had a meaning of 'universal') church, and gold coins being accepted everywhere. So, except a few ways of trading goods and a standardized-ish Latin mass there were very few things true for all of the european Middle Ages. (6) lords surely raped the peasant girls on their lands, and usually without any negative effect on the lord. That is the right way of putting it: rape. Even if there was (there very likely wasn't) such a 'law of the first night', it would still have been the same: rape. These are my points, and they seem well supported by our current historical knowledge. For anything more specific, ask not just a historian, but a historian specializing in sexual relations in pre-modern Europe. I am not.

gattilorenz 3y ago
It's not that I disagree with your points, I just don't understand where this is going :) The starting point was "many people believe jus primae noctis was a thing, but it wasn't", which roughly meant "it was not a codified law and/or a widespread accepted custom". I never commented on raping (or the connection between power dynamics and sex, which I think also existed), this was just referring to "jus primae noctis", which literally refers to the (codified) right of a local lord to (potentially) have sex with every bride in the first night of marriage, legally. This was not common, accepted or normal in any region of Europe as far as I know (and who would accept this, in any case? There would be rebellions everywhere, everyone had a daughter or a wife!); however, a sizable amount of people think this was indeed the case. I think we're agreeing on this? I'm sure some (or many) lords convinced/threatened their pheasants to have sex, or directly raped them, probably with little repercussions, but that seems not limited nor peculiar to medieval times.
- simbolit 3y ago
  (1) you initially seemed like the above-mentioned "contemporary authors", and I wanted to push back on the (suspected) inverse misconception. (2) the very idea of ipn is a wrong framing. The proper name for non-consensual sex is rape, no matter the time, culture, legal framework or absence thereof. No further points, this is going nowhere. We are in agreement.
  - gattilorenz 3y ago
    Ok, now I see how we got here :) To nitpick, I am like the current authors (by "contemporary" I meant "medieval", btw): it was not a codified right, and that's really the crux of the issue. If you want to point out that the concept is morally wrong, I think everyone in the world agrees it is, but it's not a very helpful point when talking about the legality and existence of a practice in its historical context. If we change the name to "legalized rape" maybe it's easier to see this: my first post reads like "legalized rape was never a widespread and accepted custom". We can talk about the futility of the word "legalized" if we're considering the morality of it (in that legal rape is still rape, and wrong and abhorrent), but in the context of historical practice this is... irrelevant? Rape still existed, unfortunately, and it was likely not always pursued/punished (and even worse, not necessarily for the lack of an indipendent judge: sometimes rape was "fixed" by marrying the girl, which was... a thing until the last century in Italy, and I imagine there were even cases where the raped girl was also disowned by the legitimate husband)
    - simbolit 3y ago
      > legalized rape was never a widespread and accepted custom Now, - having abandoned the ipn concept - you are getting too broad with your claims. very few legal systems allowed for the prosecution of rape within marriage before the 1970s - legalized rape was a common thing. But I have to do some work now, so I likely won't answer any further. Have a nice day (if you are in Italy) or a good night (if you are on the other side of the globe).
      - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

gattilorenz 3y ago

It's not that I disagree with your points, I just don't understand where this is going :) The starting point was "many people believe jus primae noctis was a thing, but it wasn't", which roughly meant "it was not a codified law and/or a widespread accepted custom". I never commented on raping (or the connection between power dynamics and sex, which I think also existed), this was just referring to "jus primae noctis", which literally refers to the (codified) right of a local lord to (potentially) have sex with every bride in the first night of marriage, legally. This was not common, accepted or normal in any region of Europe as far as I know (and who would accept this, in any case? There would be rebellions everywhere, everyone had a daughter or a wife!); however, a sizable amount of people think this was indeed the case. I think we're agreeing on this? I'm sure some (or many) lords convinced/threatened their pheasants to have sex, or directly raped them, probably with little repercussions, but that seems not limited nor peculiar to medieval times.

simbolit 3y ago
(1) you initially seemed like the above-mentioned "contemporary authors", and I wanted to push back on the (suspected) inverse misconception. (2) the very idea of ipn is a wrong framing. The proper name for non-consensual sex is rape, no matter the time, culture, legal framework or absence thereof. No further points, this is going nowhere. We are in agreement.
- gattilorenz 3y ago
  Ok, now I see how we got here :) To nitpick, I am like the current authors (by "contemporary" I meant "medieval", btw): it was not a codified right, and that's really the crux of the issue. If you want to point out that the concept is morally wrong, I think everyone in the world agrees it is, but it's not a very helpful point when talking about the legality and existence of a practice in its historical context. If we change the name to "legalized rape" maybe it's easier to see this: my first post reads like "legalized rape was never a widespread and accepted custom". We can talk about the futility of the word "legalized" if we're considering the morality of it (in that legal rape is still rape, and wrong and abhorrent), but in the context of historical practice this is... irrelevant? Rape still existed, unfortunately, and it was likely not always pursued/punished (and even worse, not necessarily for the lack of an indipendent judge: sometimes rape was "fixed" by marrying the girl, which was... a thing until the last century in Italy, and I imagine there were even cases where the raped girl was also disowned by the legitimate husband)
  - simbolit 3y ago
    > legalized rape was never a widespread and accepted custom Now, - having abandoned the ipn concept - you are getting too broad with your claims. very few legal systems allowed for the prosecution of rape within marriage before the 1970s - legalized rape was a common thing. But I have to do some work now, so I likely won't answer any further. Have a nice day (if you are in Italy) or a good night (if you are on the other side of the globe).
    - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]