Jump to content

Common scold: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Medieval England: punctuation/wording
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
 
(31 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Troublesome person in English law}}
{{Redirect|Scold|the act of scolding|scolding}}
{{use British English|date=February 2016}}
{{use British English|date=February 2016}}
{{use dmy dates|date=February 2016}}
{{use dmy dates|date=February 2016}}
[[File:Old woman draught at Ratcliffe Highway.png|thumb|right|Punishing a common scold in the [[ducking stool]]]]
[[File:Old woman draught at Ratcliffe Highway.png|thumb|right|Punishing a common scold in the [[ducking stool]]]]


In the [[common law]] of [[criminal law|crime]] in [[England and Wales]], a '''common scold''' was a type of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry person who broke the public peace by habitually [[chastising]], [[arguing]] and [[quarrelling]] with their neighbours. Most punished for scolding were women, though men could be found to be scolds.
In the [[common law]] of [[criminal law|crime]] in [[England and Wales]], a '''common scold''' was a type of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry person who broke the public peace by habitually [[Chastise|chastising]], [[arguing]], and [[wikt:quarrel#Noun|quarrelling]] with their neighbours. Most punished for scolding were women, though men could be found to be scolds.


The offence, which carried across in the [[English colonisation of the Americas]], was punished by fines and increasingly less often by ways intended to humiliate in public: [[cucking stool|dunking]] (being arm-fastened into a chair and dunked into a river or pond, or paraded through the street on wheels); being put in the [[scold's bridle]] (branks); or the [[stocks]]. Selling bad bread or bad ale was also punished in these ways in some parts of England in medieval centuries.
The offence, which carried across in the [[English colonisation of the Americas]], was punished by fines and public humiliation: [[cucking stool|dunking]] (being arm-fastened into a chair and dunked into a river or pond); parading through the street; being put in the [[scold's bridle]] (branks) or the [[stocks]]. Selling bad bread or bad ale was also punished in these ways in some parts of England in medieval centuries.


None of the physical punishments are known to have been administered (such as by magistrates) since an instance in 1817 which involved a wheeling through the streets. Washington D.C. authorities imposed a fine against a writer against clerics, declared a common scold, in 1829. The offence and punishment were abolished in England and Wales in 1967 and in New Jersey declared as such formally in 1972.
None of the physical punishments is known to have been administered (such as by magistrates) since an instance in 1817 that involved a wheeling through the streets. Washington D.C. authorities imposed a fine against a writer against clerics, declared a common scold, in 1829. The offence and punishment were abolished in England and Wales in 1967, and formally in New Jersey in 1972.


==The offence and its punishment==
==The offence and its punishment==


=== Medieval England ===
=== Medieval England ===
The offence of scolding developed from the late middle ages in England. A British historian suggests attempts to control and punish 'bad speech' increased after the [[Black Death in England|Black Death]], when demographic shift led to greater resistance and threats to the [[status quo]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bardsley|first=Sandy|date=2006|title=Sin, Speech and Scolding in Late Medieval England|journal=Fama: The Politics of Talk and Reputation in Medieval Europe, Ed. Thelma Fenster and Daniel Lord Smail|pages=146–48}}</ref> This included prosecutions for scolding. Scolds were described using Latin terms, including {{lang|la|objurgator, garulator, rixator}} and {{lang|la|litigator}}, found in masculine and feminine forms in medieval legal records and all referring to negative forms of speech, chatter, quarrelling or reproachment. These offences were commonly presented and punished in [[Manorial court|manorial]] or borough courts that governed the behaviour of peasants and townspeople across England; with a scarce few to the parish [[vestry]].<ref>{{Cite book|title=Gender and petty crime in late medieval England : the local courts in Kent, 1460–1560|last=Jones|first=Karen|date=2006|publisher=Boydell Press|isbn=184383216X|location=Woodbridge|pages=104–06|oclc=65767599}}</ref> The most common punishment was a fine.
The offence of scolding developed from the late Middle Ages in England. A British historian suggests attempts to control and punish 'bad speech' increased after the [[Black Death in England|Black Death]], when demographic shift led to greater resistance and threats to the [[status quo]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bardsley|first=Sandy|date=2006|title=Sin, Speech and Scolding in Late Medieval England|journal=Fama: The Politics of Talk and Reputation in Medieval Europe, ed. Thelma Fenster and Daniel Lord Smail|pages=146–48}}</ref> This included prosecutions for scolding. Scolds were described using Latin terms, including {{lang|la|objurgator, garulator, rixator}} and {{lang|la|litigator}}, found in masculine and feminine forms ({{lang|la|objurgatrix}}, etc.) in medieval legal records and all referring to negative forms of speech, chatter, quarrelling or reproachment. These offences were commonly presented and punished in [[Manorial court|manorial]] or borough courts that governed the behaviour of peasants and townspeople across England; with a scarce few to the parish [[vestry]].<ref>{{Cite book|title=Gender and petty crime in late medieval England : the local courts in Kent, 1460–1560|last=Jones|first=Karen|date=2006|publisher=Boydell Press|isbn=184383216X|location=Woodbridge|pages=104–06|oclc=65767599}}</ref> The most common punishment was a fine.


Some historians write of scolding and bad speech coded as feminine offences by the late medieval period. Women of all marital statuses were prosecuted for scolding. Those married featured most often&mdash;widows were rarely labelled scolds.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England|last=Sandy|first=Bardsley|isbn=978-0812239362|location=Philadelphia|pages=123–25|oclc=891396093|year=2006}}</ref> In places such as [[Exeter]] scolds were typically poorer women&mdash;elsewhere scolds could include members of the local elite.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England|last=Sandy|first=Bardsley|isbn=978-0812239362|location=Philadelphia|pages=135–36|oclc=891396093|year=2006}}</ref> Women who were also charged with matters such as violence, nightwandering, eavesdropping, flirting or adultery were also likely to be labelled scolds.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England|last=Sandy|first=Bardsley|isbn=978-0812239362|location=Philadelphia|page=137|oclc=891396093|date =2006}}</ref> People were in some parts frequently labelled 'common scolds', indicating the impact of their behaviour and speech on a community. Karen Jones identified 13 men prosecuted for scolding in Kent's secular courts, compared to 94 women and 2 couples.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Gender and petty crime in late medieval England : the local courts in Kent, 1460–1560|last=1939-|first=Jones, Karen|date=2006|publisher=Boydell Press|isbn=184383216X|location=Woodbridge|page=108|oclc=65767599}}</ref>
Some historians write of scolding and bad speech coded as feminine offences by the late medieval period. Women of all marital statuses were prosecuted for scolding. The married were featured most often, whereas widows were only rarely labelled scolds.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England|last=Bardsley|first=Sandy|isbn=978-0812239362|location=Philadelphia|pages=123–25|oclc=891396093|year=2006}}</ref> In places such as [[Exeter]] scolds were typically poorer women&mdash;elsewhere scolds could include members of the local elite.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England|last=Bardsley|first=Sandy|isbn=978-0812239362|location=Philadelphia|pages=135–36|oclc=891396093|year=2006}}</ref> Women who were also charged with matters such as violence, nightwandering, eavesdropping, flirting or adultery were also likely to be labelled scolds.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England|last=Bardsley|first=Sandy|isbn=978-0812239362|location=Philadelphia|page=137|oclc=891396093|date =2006}}</ref> People were in some parts frequently labelled 'common scolds', indicating the impact of their behaviour and speech on a community. Karen Jones identified 13 men prosecuted for scolding in Kent's secular courts, compared to 94 women and 2 couples.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Gender and petty crime in late medieval England : the local courts in Kent, 1460–1560|last=Jones|first=Karen|date=2006|publisher=Boydell Press|isbn=184383216X|location=Woodbridge|page=108|oclc=65767599}}</ref>


Many of the male minority convicted were co-accused with their wives. In 1434, Helen Bradwall (wife of Peter Bradwall), scolded Hugh Welesson and his wife Isabel in Middlewich, calling Isabel a "child murderer" and Hugh a "skallet [wretched] knave". Isabel and Hugh also scolded Helen, calling her a "lesyng blebberer" (lying bletherer). All parties were fined for the offences&mdash;Hugh and Isabel: jointly.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England|last=Sandy|first=Bardsley|isbn=978-0812239362|location=Philadelphia|pages=102|oclc=891396093|date = 31 May 2006}}</ref> Like women, male scolds were often accused of many other offences, such as fornication, theft, illegal trading, and assault.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England|last=Sandy|first=Bardsley|isbn=978-0812239362|location=Philadelphia|page=103|oclc=891396093|date = 2006}}</ref>
Many of the male minority convicted were co-accused with their wives. In 1434, Helen Bradwall (wife of Peter Bradwall), scolded Hugh Welesson and his wife Isabel in Middlewich, calling Isabel a "child murderer" and Hugh a "skallet [wretched] knave". Isabel and Hugh also scolded Helen, calling her a "lesyng blebberer" (lying blatherer). All parties were fined for the offences&mdash;Hugh and Isabel: jointly.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England|last=Bardsley|first=Sandy|isbn=978-0812239362|location=Philadelphia|pages=102|oclc=891396093|date = 31 May 2006}}</ref> Like women, male scolds were often accused of many other offences, such as fornication, theft, illegal trading, and assault.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England|last=Bardsley|first=Sandy|isbn=978-0812239362|location=Philadelphia|page=103|oclc=891396093|date = 2006}}</ref>


=== Later punishments of scolding ===
=== Later punishments of scolding ===
Later legal treatises reflect the dominance of scolding as a charge levied against women. In the ''[[Commentaries on the Laws of England]]'', [[William Blackstone|Blackstone]] outlines the offence:
Later legal treatises reflect the dominance of scolding as a charge levied against women. In the ''[[Commentaries on the Laws of England]]'', [[William Blackstone|Blackstone]] outlines the offence:


{{quote|text=Lastly, a common scold, {{lang|la|communis rixatrix}}, (for our law-latin confines it to the feminine gender) is a public nuisance to her neighbourhood. For which offence she may be indicted; and, if convicted, shall be sentenced to be placed in a certain engine of correction called the trebucket, castigatory, or [[cucking stool]], which in [[Old English|the Saxon language]] signifies the scolding stool; though now it is frequently corrupted into ducking stool, because the residue of the judgment is, that, when she is so placed therein, she shall be plunged in the water for her punishment.|sign=[[Commentaries on the Laws of England|Bl. Comm.]] IV:13.5.8, p. 169}}
{{blockquote|text=Lastly, a common scold, {{lang|la|communis rixatrix}}, (for our law-latin confines it to the feminine gender) is a public nuisance to her neighbourhood. For which offence she may be indicted; and, if convicted, shall be sentenced to be placed in a certain engine of correction called the trebucket, castigatory, or [[cucking stool]], which in [[Old English|the Saxon language]] signifies the scolding stool; though now it is frequently corrupted into ducking stool, because the residue of the judgment is, that, when she is so placed therein, she shall be plunged in the water for her punishment.|sign=[[Commentaries on the Laws of England|Bl. Comm.]] IV:13.5.8, p. 169}}
[[Image:The Branks from Curious Punishments of Bygone Days (1896) - 02.jpg|thumb|right|Scold's bridles or branks were used as a punishment.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scold%27s_bridle#Historical_examples</ref>]]
[[Image:The Branks from Curious Punishments of Bygone Days (1896) - 02.jpg|thumb|right|Scold's bridles or branks were used as a punishment.<ref>[[Scold's bridle#Historical examples]]</ref>{{Circular reference|date=February 2021}}]]


This ascribes the shift to ''ducking stool'' to a [[folk etymology]]. Other writers disagree with this: the ''[[Domesday Book]]'' notes the use of a form of cucking stool at [[Chester]] as a {{lang|la|cathedra stercoris}}, a "dung chair", whose punishment apparently involved exposing the sitter's buttocks to onlookers. This seat served to punish not only scolds, but also brewers and bakers who sold bad ale or bread, whereas the ducking stool dunked its victim into the water.
This ascribes the shift to ''ducking stool'' to a [[folk etymology]]. Other writers disagree with this: the ''[[Domesday Book]]'' notes the use of a form of cucking stool at [[Chester]] as a {{lang|la|cathedra stercoris}}, a "dung chair", whose punishment apparently involved exposing the sitter's buttocks to onlookers. This seat served to punish not only scolds, but also brewers and bakers who sold bad ale or bread, whereas the ducking stool dunked its victim into the water.


French traveller and writer [[Francois Maximilian Misson]] recorded the means used in England in the early 18th century:<ref name="AME">{{cite book |title=Curious Punishments of Bygone Days |chapter=The Ducking Stool |author=Alice Morse Earle |year=1896 |chapter-url=http://www.getchwood.com/punishments/curious/chapter-2.html |access-date=18 January 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070117004233/http://www.getchwood.com/punishments/curious/chapter-2.html |archive-date=17 January 2007 }}</ref>
French traveller and writer [[Francois Maximilian Misson]] recorded the means used in England in the early 18th century:<ref name="AME">{{cite book |title=Curious Punishments of Bygone Days |chapter=The Ducking Stool |first=Alice |last=Morse Earle |year=1896 |chapter-url=http://www.getchwood.com/punishments/curious/chapter-2.html |access-date=18 January 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070117004233/http://www.getchwood.com/punishments/curious/chapter-2.html |archive-date=17 January 2007 }}</ref>


{{quote|text=The way of punishing scolding women is pleasant enough. They fasten an armchair to the end of two beams twelve or fifteen feet long, and parallel to each other, so that these two pieces of wood with their two ends embrace the chair, which hangs between them by a sort of axle, by which means it plays freely, and always remains in the natural horizontal position in which a chair should be, that a person may sit conveniently in it, whether you raise it or let it down. They set up a post on the bank of a pond or river, and over this post they lay, almost in equilibrio, the two pieces of wood, at one end of which the chair hangs just over the water. They place the woman in this chair and so plunge her into the water as often as the sentence directs, in order to cool her immoderate heat.}}
{{blockquote|text=The way of punishing scolding women is pleasant enough. They fasten an armchair to the end of two beams twelve or fifteen feet long, and parallel to each other, so that these two pieces of wood with their two ends embrace the chair, which hangs between them by a sort of axle, by which means it plays freely, and always remains in the natural horizontal position in which a chair should be, that a person may sit conveniently in it, whether you raise it or let it down. They set up a post on the bank of a pond or river, and over this post they lay, almost in equilibrio, the two pieces of wood, at one end of which the chair hangs just over the water. They place the woman in this chair and so plunge her into the water as often as the sentence directs, in order to cool her immoderate heat.}}


The ducking stool, rather than being fixed by the water, could be mounted on wheels to allow the convict to be paraded through the streets before punishment was carried out. Another method of ducking was to use the tumbrel: a chair on two wheels with two long shafts fixed to joining axles. This would be pushed into the water and the shafts would be released, tipping the chair up backwards and ducking the occupant.<ref name="ne">{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle=Ducking and Cucking Stools |volume=8 |page=361}}</ref>
The ducking stool, rather than being fixed by the water, could be mounted on wheels to allow the convict to be paraded through the streets before punishment was carried out. Another method of ducking was to use the tumbrel: a chair on two wheels with two long shafts fixed to joining axles. This would be pushed into the water and the shafts would be released, tipping the chair up backwards and ducking the occupant.<ref name="ne">{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle=Ducking and Cucking Stools |volume=8 |page=361}}</ref>


A [[scold's bridle]], known in Scotland as a brank, consists of a locking metal mask or head cage that contains a tab that fits in the mouth to inhibit talking. Some have claimed that convicted common scolds had to wear such a device as a preventive or punitive measure. Legal sources do not mention them in the context. Anecdotes report their use as a public punishment.<ref name="Dugdale">{{cite book|title=England and Wales Delineated: Historical, Entertaining & Commercial|url=https://archive.org/details/englandandwales00dugdgoog|author=Thomas Dugdale, William Burnett|year=1860|pages=[https://archive.org/details/englandandwales00dugdgoog/page/n308 1238]}}</ref><ref name="LandC">{{cite journal|journal=Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire|author=Frederick W. Fairholt|title=On a Grotesque Mask of Punishment Obtained in the Castle of Nuremberg|publisher=J.H. Parker for the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire|location= 377, Strand. London|year=1855|pages=62–64|volume=VII}}</ref>
A [[scold's bridle]], known in Scotland as a brank, consists of a locking metal mask or head cage that contains a tab that fits in the mouth to inhibit talking. Some have claimed that convicted common scolds had to wear such a device as a preventive or punitive measure. Legal sources do not mention them in the context. Anecdotes report their use as a public punishment.<ref name="Dugdale">{{cite book|title=England and Wales Delineated: Historical, Entertaining & Commercial|url=https://archive.org/details/englandandwales00dugdgoog|first1=Thomas|last1=Dugdale|first2=William|last2=Burnett|year=1860|pages=[https://archive.org/details/englandandwales00dugdgoog/page/n308 1238]|publisher=n. pub.}}</ref><ref name="LandC">{{cite journal|journal=Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire|first=Frederick W.|last=Fairholt|title=On a Grotesque Mask of Punishment Obtained in the Castle of Nuremberg|publisher=J.H. Parker for the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire|location= London|year=1855|pages=62–64|volume=VII}}</ref>


In 17th-century [[New England]] and [[Long Island]], scolds or those convicted of similar offences—men and women—could be sentenced to stand with their tongue in a cleft stick, a more primitive but easier-to-construct version of the bridle—alternatively, to the ducking stool.<ref name="AME2">{{cite book|title=Curious Punishments of Bygone Days|chapter=Branks and gags|author=Alice Morse Earle|year=1896|chapter-url=http://www.getchwood.com/punishments/curious/chapter-8.html|access-date=18 January 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070403165205/http://www.getchwood.com/punishments/curious/chapter-8.html|archive-date=3 April 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="AME" />
In 17th-century [[New England]] and [[Long Island]], scolds or those convicted of similar offences—men and women—could be sentenced to stand with their tongue in a cleft stick, a more primitive but easier-to-construct version of the bridle—alternatively, to the ducking stool.<ref name="AME2">{{cite book|title=Curious Punishments of Bygone Days|chapter=Branks and gags|first=Alice |last=Morse Earle|year=1896|chapter-url=http://www.getchwood.com/punishments/curious/chapter-8.html|access-date=18 January 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070403165205/http://www.getchwood.com/punishments/curious/chapter-8.html|archive-date=3 April 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="AME" />


==Prosecutions==
==Prosecutions==
[[Image:The Ducking-Stool from Curious Punishments of Bygone Days (1896).jpg|right|thumb|This [[woodcut]] shows the wheels on a ducking stool mount which allowed the occupant to be wheeled through the streets before being ducked.]]
[[Image:The Ducking-Stool from Curious Punishments of Bygone Days (1896).jpg|right|thumb|This [[woodcut]] shows the wheels on a ducking stool mount which allowed the occupant to be wheeled through the streets before being ducked.]]


A plaque on the Fye Bridge in [[Norwich]], England claims to mark the site of a "cucking" stool, and that from 1562–1597 [[strumpet]]s (flirtatious or promiscuous young women) and common scolds suffered dunking there. In the ''Percy Anecdotes'', published pseudonymously by [[Thomas Byerley (journalist)|Thomas Byerley]] and [[Joseph Clinton Robertson]] in 1821{{ndash}}1823, the authors state that "How long the ducking-stool has been in disuse in England does not appear."<ref name="percy">{{cite book|title=The Percy Anecdotes|author=[[Reuben Percy]] and [[Sholto Percy]]|year=1823|publisher=Printed for T. Boys|location=London|url=http://www.mspong.org/percy/crime.htm#TheDuckingStool|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040910073842/http://www.mspong.org/percy/crime.htm#TheDuckingStool|archive-date=10 September 2004|df=dmy-all}}</ref> The ''Anecdotes'' also suggest [[penology|penological]] ineffectiveness as grounds for the stool's disuse; the text relates the 1681 case of a Mrs. Finch, who had received three convictions and duckings as a common scold. On her fourth conviction, the [[King's Bench]] declined to dunk her again, ordering a fine of three [[mark (money)|marks]] and jail until payment took place.
A plaque on the Fye Bridge in [[Norwich]], England, claims to mark the site of a "cucking" stool, and that from 1562 to 1597 [[strumpet]]s (flirtatious or promiscuous young women) and common scolds suffered dunking there. In the ''Percy Anecdotes'', published pseudonymously by [[Thomas Byerley (journalist)|Thomas Byerley]] and [[Joseph Clinton Robertson]] in 1821{{ndash}}1823, the authors state that "How long the ducking-stool has been in disuse in England does not appear."<ref name="percy">{{cite book|title=The Percy Anecdotes|first1=Reuben|last1=Percy|author1-link=Reuben Percy|first2=Sholto|last2=Percy|author2-link=Sholto Percy|year=1823|publisher=Printed for T. Boys|location=London|url=http://www.mspong.org/percy/crime.htm#TheDuckingStool|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040910073842/http://www.mspong.org/percy/crime.htm#TheDuckingStool|archive-date=10 September 2004|df=dmy-all}}</ref> The ''Anecdotes'' also suggest [[penology|penological]] ineffectiveness as grounds for the stool's disuse; the text relates the 1681 case of a Mrs. Finch, who had received three convictions and duckings as a common scold. On her fourth conviction, the [[Court of King's Bench (England)|King's Bench]] declined to dunk her again, ordering a fine of three [[mark (money)|marks]] and jail until payment took place.


The ''Percy Anecdotes'' also quote a pastoral poem by [[John Gay]] (1685{{ndash}}1732), who wrote that:
The ''Percy Anecdotes'' also quote a pastoral poem by [[John Gay]] (1685{{ndash}}1732), who wrote that:
Line 45: Line 47:
{{poemquote|I'll speed me to the pond, where the high stool
{{poemquote|I'll speed me to the pond, where the high stool
On the long plank, hangs o'er the muddy pool,
On the long plank, hangs o'er the muddy pool,
That stool the dread of ev'ry scolding quean.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://spenserians.cath.vt.edu/TextRecord.php?textsid=33871 |title=The Shepherd's Week : Wednesday; or, The Dumps |author=John Gay |date=1714 |access-date=31 October 2014}}</ref>}}
That stool the dread of ev'ry scolding quean.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://spenserians.cath.vt.edu/TextRecord.php?textsid=33871 |title=The Shepherd's Week : Wednesday; or, The Dumps |first=John |last=Gay |date=1714 |access-date=31 October 2014 |archive-date=1 November 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141101002417/http://spenserians.cath.vt.edu/TextRecord.php?textsid=33871 |url-status=live }}</ref>}}


and a 1780 poem by [[Benjamin West]], who wrote that:
and a 1780 poem by Benjamin West, who wrote that:


{{poemquote|There stands, my friend, in yonder pool,
{{poemquote|There stands, my friend, in yonder pool,
Line 53: Line 55:
By legal pow'r commanded down,
By legal pow'r commanded down,
The joy and terror of the town.
The joy and terror of the town.
If jarring females kindle strife...<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34005/34005-h/34005-h.htm#Page_11 |title=Curious Punishments of Bygone Days |author=Alice Morse Earle |website=Project Gutenberg |date=1896 |access-date=31 October 2014}}</ref>}}
If jarring females kindle strife&nbsp;...<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34005/34005-h/34005-h.htm#Page_11 |title=Curious Punishments of Bygone Days |first=Alice |last=Morse Earle |website=Project Gutenberg |date=1896 |access-date=31 October 2014 |archive-date=24 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924215451/http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34005/34005-h/34005-h.htm#Page_11 |url-status=live }}</ref>}}


While these literary sources do not prove that the punishment still took place, they do provide evidence that it had not been forgotten.
While these literary sources do not prove that the punishment still took place, they do provide evidence that it had not been forgotten.


In ''The Queen v Foxby'', 6 Mod. 11 (1704), counsel for the accused stated that he knew of no law for the dunking of scolds. Lord Chief Justice [[John Holt (judge)|John Holt]] of the Queen's Bench apparently pronounced this error, for he announced that it was "better ducking in a [[Trinity Sunday|Trinity]], than a [[Michaelmas]] [[quarter Sessions|term]]", i.e. better carried out in summer than in winter. The tenor of Holt's remarks suggests that he found the punishment a rare or dead local custom seen by the sovereign's court as risible.<ref name="fc">{{cite web|url=http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs19.html|title=The Founders Constitution: Volume 5, Amendment VIII, Document 19|year=1987|publisher=University of Chicago|access-date=18 January 2007}}</ref>
In ''The Queen v Foxby'', 6 Mod. 11 (1704), counsel for the accused stated that he knew of no law for the dunking of scolds. Lord Chief Justice [[John Holt (judge)|John Holt]] of the Queen's Bench apparently pronounced this error, for he announced that it was "better ducking in a [[Trinity Sunday|Trinity]], than a [[Michaelmas]] [[quarter sessions|term]]", i.e. better carried out in summer than in winter. The tenor of Holt's remarks suggests that he found the punishment a rare or dead local custom seen by the sovereign's court as risible.<ref name="fc">{{cite web|url=http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs19.html|title=The Founders Constitution: Volume 5, Amendment VIII, Document 19|year=1987|publisher=University of Chicago|access-date=18 January 2007|archive-date=12 March 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070312103001/http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs19.html|url-status=live}}</ref>


The last recorded uses of ducking stool were
The last recorded uses of ducking stool were
Line 64: Line 66:
*Sarah Leeke (1817) from Leominster was sentenced to be ducked but the water in the pond was so low that the authorities merely wheeled her round the town in the chair.<ref name="ne" />
*Sarah Leeke (1817) from Leominster was sentenced to be ducked but the water in the pond was so low that the authorities merely wheeled her round the town in the chair.<ref name="ne" />


In 1812, federal enforcement of [[common law offence]]s was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in ''[[United States v. Hudson and Goodwin]]''. Nevertheless, in 1829, a Washington, D.C. court found the American [[anti-clericalism|anti-clerical]] writer [[Anne Royall]] guilty of being a common scold, the outcome of a campaign launched by local clergymen. A traditional "engine" for intended punishment was built by sailors at the Navy Yard. The court ruled the punishment of the cucking-stool obsolete and instead imposed a fine of ten dollars.<ref name="LC">{{cite web|url=https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0001/royall.html|title=An Uncommon Scold|publisher=Library of Congress|author=Cynthia Earman|date=January 2001|access-date=18 January 2007}}</ref>
In 1812, federal enforcement of [[common law offence]]s was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in ''[[United States v. Hudson and Goodwin]]''. Nevertheless, in 1829, a Washington, D.C., court found the American [[anti-clericalism|anti-clerical]] writer [[Anne Royall]] guilty of being a common scold, the outcome of a campaign launched by local clergymen. A traditional "engine" for intended punishment was built by sailors at the Navy Yard. The court ruled the punishment of the ducking-stool obsolete and instead imposed a fine of ten dollars.<ref name="LC">{{cite web|url=https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0001/royall.html|title=An Uncommon Scold|publisher=Library of Congress|first=Cynthia|last=Earman|date=January 2001|access-date=18 January 2007|archive-date=1 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190301092858/http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0001/royall.html|url-status=live}}</ref>


==Current status of the law==
==Current status of the law==
Counsel in ''Sykes v. Director of Public Prosecutions'' [1962] AC 528 said he could find no cases for more than a century and described the offence as "obsolete". Section 13(1)(a) of the [[Criminal Law Act 1967]] abolished it.
Counsel in ''Sykes v. Director of Public Prosecutions'' [1962] AC 528 said he could find no cases for more than a century and described the offence as "obsolete". Section 13(1)(a) of the [[Criminal Law Act 1967]] abolished it.


The common law offence endured in New Jersey until struck down in 1972 by Circuit Judge McCann who found it had been subsumed in the provisions of the Disorderly Conduct Act of 1898, was [[Vagueness doctrine|bad for vagueness]] and offended the [[14th Amendment to the US Constitution]] for sex discrimination. It was opined that, the punishment of ducking could amount to a {{Not a typo|corpor(e)al}} punishment, in which case was unlawful under the [[New Jersey Constitution of 1844]] or since 1776.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=State of New Jersey v. Marion Palendrano |vol= 120 N.J. Super. 336 (1972)|reporter= |opinion= McCann JCC|court= Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (Criminal)|date= 13 July 1972|url=http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1972/120-n-j-super-336-0.html |accessdate=28 May 2016 |quote=}}</ref>
The common law offence endured in New Jersey until struck down in 1972 in ''[[State v. Palendrano]]'' by Circuit Judge McGann, who found it had been subsumed in the provisions of the Disorderly Conduct Act of 1898, was [[Vagueness doctrine|bad for vagueness]] and offended the [[14th Amendment to the US Constitution]] for sex discrimination. It was also opined that the punishment of ducking could amount to a {{Not a typo|corpor(e)al}} punishment, in which case that punishment was unlawful under the [[New Jersey Constitution of 1844]] or since 1776.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=State of New Jersey v. Marion Palendrano |vol= 120 N.J. Super. 336 (1972)|reporter= |opinion= McCann JCC|court= Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (Criminal)|date= 13 July 1972|url=http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1972/120-n-j-super-336-0.html |accessdate=28 May 2016 |quote=}}</ref>


In the United States, many states have laws restricting public [[profanity]], excessive [[noise (environmental)|noise]], and [[disorderly conduct]]. None of these laws carry the distinctive punishment originally reserved for the common scold, nor are they gender-centric as the offense was.
In the United States, many states have laws restricting public [[profanity]], excessive [[noise (environmental)|noise]], and [[disorderly conduct]]. None of these laws carry the distinctive punishment originally reserved for the common scold, nor are they gender-centric as the offence was.


==See also==
==See also==
Line 78: Line 80:
* [[Equality of the sexes]]
* [[Equality of the sexes]]
* [[Corporal punishment]]
* [[Corporal punishment]]
* [[Karen (slang)]]
⚫
{{portalbar|Law|England|Wales}}
⚫
{{History of English criminal law|state=expanded}}


==References==
==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}
{{Reflist}}

⚫
{{portalbar|Law|England|Wales}}
⚫
{{History of English criminal law|state=expanded}}


==External links==
==External links==

Latest revision as of 17:54, 29 July 2024

"Scold" redirects here. For the act of scolding, see scolding.

Punishing a common scold in the ducking stool

In the common law of crime in England and Wales, a common scold was a type of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry person who broke the public peace by habitually chastising, arguing, and quarrelling with their neighbours. Most punished for scolding were women, though men could be found to be scolds.

The offence, which carried across in the English colonisation of the Americas, was punished by fines and public humiliation: dunking (being arm-fastened into a chair and dunked into a river or pond); parading through the street; being put in the scold's bridle (branks) or the stocks. Selling bad bread or bad ale was also punished in these ways in some parts of England in medieval centuries.

None of the physical punishments is known to have been administered (such as by magistrates) since an instance in 1817 that involved a wheeling through the streets. Washington D.C. authorities imposed a fine against a writer against clerics, declared a common scold, in 1829. The offence and punishment were abolished in England and Wales in 1967, and formally in New Jersey in 1972.

The offence and its punishment

[edit]

Medieval England

[edit]

The offence of scolding developed from the late Middle Ages in England. A British historian suggests attempts to control and punish 'bad speech' increased after the Black Death, when demographic shift led to greater resistance and threats to the status quo.[1] This included prosecutions for scolding. Scolds were described using Latin terms, including objurgator, garulator, rixator and litigator, found in masculine and feminine forms (objurgatrix, etc.) in medieval legal records and all referring to negative forms of speech, chatter, quarrelling or reproachment. These offences were commonly presented and punished in manorial or borough courts that governed the behaviour of peasants and townspeople across England; with a scarce few to the parish vestry.[2] The most common punishment was a fine.

Some historians write of scolding and bad speech coded as feminine offences by the late medieval period. Women of all marital statuses were prosecuted for scolding. The married were featured most often, whereas widows were only rarely labelled scolds.[3] In places such as Exeter scolds were typically poorer women—elsewhere scolds could include members of the local elite.[4] Women who were also charged with matters such as violence, nightwandering, eavesdropping, flirting or adultery were also likely to be labelled scolds.[5] People were in some parts frequently labelled 'common scolds', indicating the impact of their behaviour and speech on a community. Karen Jones identified 13 men prosecuted for scolding in Kent's secular courts, compared to 94 women and 2 couples.[6]

Many of the male minority convicted were co-accused with their wives. In 1434, Helen Bradwall (wife of Peter Bradwall), scolded Hugh Welesson and his wife Isabel in Middlewich, calling Isabel a "child murderer" and Hugh a "skallet [wretched] knave". Isabel and Hugh also scolded Helen, calling her a "lesyng blebberer" (lying blatherer). All parties were fined for the offences—Hugh and Isabel: jointly.[7] Like women, male scolds were often accused of many other offences, such as fornication, theft, illegal trading, and assault.[8]

Later punishments of scolding

[edit]

Later legal treatises reflect the dominance of scolding as a charge levied against women. In the Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone outlines the offence:

Lastly, a common scold, communis rixatrix, (for our law-latin confines it to the feminine gender) is a public nuisance to her neighbourhood. For which offence she may be indicted; and, if convicted, shall be sentenced to be placed in a certain engine of correction called the trebucket, castigatory, or cucking stool, which in the Saxon language signifies the scolding stool; though now it is frequently corrupted into ducking stool, because the residue of the judgment is, that, when she is so placed therein, she shall be plunged in the water for her punishment.

— Bl. Comm. IV:13.5.8, p. 169
Scold's bridles or branks were used as a punishment.[9][circular reference]

This ascribes the shift to ducking stool to a folk etymology. Other writers disagree with this: the Domesday Book notes the use of a form of cucking stool at Chester as a cathedra stercoris, a "dung chair", whose punishment apparently involved exposing the sitter's buttocks to onlookers. This seat served to punish not only scolds, but also brewers and bakers who sold bad ale or bread, whereas the ducking stool dunked its victim into the water.

French traveller and writer Francois Maximilian Misson recorded the means used in England in the early 18th century:[10]

The way of punishing scolding women is pleasant enough. They fasten an armchair to the end of two beams twelve or fifteen feet long, and parallel to each other, so that these two pieces of wood with their two ends embrace the chair, which hangs between them by a sort of axle, by which means it plays freely, and always remains in the natural horizontal position in which a chair should be, that a person may sit conveniently in it, whether you raise it or let it down. They set up a post on the bank of a pond or river, and over this post they lay, almost in equilibrio, the two pieces of wood, at one end of which the chair hangs just over the water. They place the woman in this chair and so plunge her into the water as often as the sentence directs, in order to cool her immoderate heat.

The ducking stool, rather than being fixed by the water, could be mounted on wheels to allow the convict to be paraded through the streets before punishment was carried out. Another method of ducking was to use the tumbrel: a chair on two wheels with two long shafts fixed to joining axles. This would be pushed into the water and the shafts would be released, tipping the chair up backwards and ducking the occupant.[11]

A scold's bridle, known in Scotland as a brank, consists of a locking metal mask or head cage that contains a tab that fits in the mouth to inhibit talking. Some have claimed that convicted common scolds had to wear such a device as a preventive or punitive measure. Legal sources do not mention them in the context. Anecdotes report their use as a public punishment.[12][13]

In 17th-century New England and Long Island, scolds or those convicted of similar offences—men and women—could be sentenced to stand with their tongue in a cleft stick, a more primitive but easier-to-construct version of the bridle—alternatively, to the ducking stool.[14][10]

Prosecutions

[edit]
This woodcut shows the wheels on a ducking stool mount which allowed the occupant to be wheeled through the streets before being ducked.

A plaque on the Fye Bridge in Norwich, England, claims to mark the site of a "cucking" stool, and that from 1562 to 1597 strumpets (flirtatious or promiscuous young women) and common scolds suffered dunking there. In the Percy Anecdotes, published pseudonymously by Thomas Byerley and Joseph Clinton Robertson in 1821–1823, the authors state that "How long the ducking-stool has been in disuse in England does not appear."[15] The Anecdotes also suggest penological ineffectiveness as grounds for the stool's disuse; the text relates the 1681 case of a Mrs. Finch, who had received three convictions and duckings as a common scold. On her fourth conviction, the King's Bench declined to dunk her again, ordering a fine of three marks and jail until payment took place.

The Percy Anecdotes also quote a pastoral poem by John Gay (1685–1732), who wrote that:

I'll speed me to the pond, where the high stool
On the long plank, hangs o'er the muddy pool,
That stool the dread of ev'ry scolding quean.[16]

and a 1780 poem by Benjamin West, who wrote that:

There stands, my friend, in yonder pool,
An engine call'd a ducking-stool;
By legal pow'r commanded down,
The joy and terror of the town.
If jarring females kindle strife ...[17]

While these literary sources do not prove that the punishment still took place, they do provide evidence that it had not been forgotten.

In The Queen v Foxby, 6 Mod. 11 (1704), counsel for the accused stated that he knew of no law for the dunking of scolds. Lord Chief Justice John Holt of the Queen's Bench apparently pronounced this error, for he announced that it was "better ducking in a Trinity, than a Michaelmas term", i.e. better carried out in summer than in winter. The tenor of Holt's remarks suggests that he found the punishment a rare or dead local custom seen by the sovereign's court as risible.[18]

The last recorded uses of ducking stool were

  • a Mrs. Ganble at Plymouth (1808)
  • Jenny Pipes, a "notorious" scold from Leominster (1809)
  • Sarah Leeke (1817) from Leominster was sentenced to be ducked but the water in the pond was so low that the authorities merely wheeled her round the town in the chair.[11]

In 1812, federal enforcement of common law offences was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin. Nevertheless, in 1829, a Washington, D.C., court found the American anti-clerical writer Anne Royall guilty of being a common scold, the outcome of a campaign launched by local clergymen. A traditional "engine" for intended punishment was built by sailors at the Navy Yard. The court ruled the punishment of the ducking-stool obsolete and instead imposed a fine of ten dollars.[19]

Current status of the law

[edit]

Counsel in Sykes v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] AC 528 said he could find no cases for more than a century and described the offence as "obsolete". Section 13(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 abolished it.

The common law offence endured in New Jersey until struck down in 1972 in State v. Palendrano by Circuit Judge McGann, who found it had been subsumed in the provisions of the Disorderly Conduct Act of 1898, was bad for vagueness and offended the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution for sex discrimination. It was also opined that the punishment of ducking could amount to a corpor(e)al punishment, in which case that punishment was unlawful under the New Jersey Constitution of 1844 or since 1776.[20]

In the United States, many states have laws restricting public profanity, excessive noise, and disorderly conduct. None of these laws carry the distinctive punishment originally reserved for the common scold, nor are they gender-centric as the offence was.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Bardsley, Sandy (2006). "Sin, Speech and Scolding in Late Medieval England". Fama: The Politics of Talk and Reputation in Medieval Europe, ed. Thelma Fenster and Daniel Lord Smail: 146–48.
  2. ^ Jones, Karen (2006). Gender and petty crime in late medieval England : the local courts in Kent, 1460–1560. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. pp. 104–06. ISBN 184383216X. OCLC 65767599.
  3. ^ Bardsley, Sandy (2006). Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England. Philadelphia. pp. 123–25. ISBN 978-0812239362. OCLC 891396093.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  4. ^ Bardsley, Sandy (2006). Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England. Philadelphia. pp. 135–36. ISBN 978-0812239362. OCLC 891396093.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  5. ^ Bardsley, Sandy (2006). Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England. Philadelphia. p. 137. ISBN 978-0812239362. OCLC 891396093.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  6. ^ Jones, Karen (2006). Gender and petty crime in late medieval England : the local courts in Kent, 1460–1560. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. p. 108. ISBN 184383216X. OCLC 65767599.
  7. ^ Bardsley, Sandy (31 May 2006). Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England. Philadelphia. p. 102. ISBN 978-0812239362. OCLC 891396093.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  8. ^ Bardsley, Sandy (2006). Venomous tongues : speech and gender in late medieval England. Philadelphia. p. 103. ISBN 978-0812239362. OCLC 891396093.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  9. ^ Scold's bridle#Historical examples
  10. ^ a b Morse Earle, Alice (1896). "The Ducking Stool". Curious Punishments of Bygone Days. Archived from the original on 17 January 2007. Retrieved 18 January 2007.
  11. ^ a b Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Ducking and Cucking Stools" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 8 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 361.
  12. ^ Dugdale, Thomas; Burnett, William (1860). England and Wales Delineated: Historical, Entertaining & Commercial. n. pub. pp. 1238.
  13. ^ Fairholt, Frederick W. (1855). "On a Grotesque Mask of Punishment Obtained in the Castle of Nuremberg". Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. VII. London: J.H. Parker for the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire: 62–64.
  14. ^ Morse Earle, Alice (1896). "Branks and gags". Curious Punishments of Bygone Days. Archived from the original on 3 April 2007. Retrieved 18 January 2007.
  15. ^ Percy, Reuben; Percy, Sholto (1823). The Percy Anecdotes. London: Printed for T. Boys. Archived from the original on 10 September 2004.
  16. ^ Gay, John (1714). "The Shepherd's Week : Wednesday; or, The Dumps". Archived from the original on 1 November 2014. Retrieved 31 October 2014.
  17. ^ Morse Earle, Alice (1896). "Curious Punishments of Bygone Days". Project Gutenberg. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 31 October 2014.
  18. ^ "The Founders Constitution: Volume 5, Amendment VIII, Document 19". University of Chicago. 1987. Archived from the original on 12 March 2007. Retrieved 18 January 2007.
  19. ^ Earman, Cynthia (January 2001). "An Uncommon Scold". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on 1 March 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2007.
  20. ^ State of New Jersey v. Marion Palendrano, 120 N.J. Super. 336 (1972) McCann JCC (Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (Criminal) 13 July 1972).
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Common_scold&oldid=1237416027"