[lbo-talk] The Common Law and Wifebeating

[andie nachgeborenen]

Obviously it is disputable, although the text says "no
violence," which is pretty plain if one is a stickler
for plain language. Some judges are, some are not, But
the main thing here is that Blackstone is not reciting
current (late 18th century) English law; he is
describing the "old" law -- how old is not clear from
the text, but at least before the reign of Charles II
(r 1660-85), and probably older; possibly even the
pre-common law rule of the Anglo-Saxons. At any rate
not the common law rule of his day. It is therefore
illiterate or dishonest to cite Blackstone for a legal
justification for wifebeating, as the source Kells
cited did. jks

--- jeffrey fisher <jfisher at igc.org> wrote:
> so, what does the otherwise clause mean, here?
> especially in the 
> context of correcting women being like correcting
> slaves?
> 
> i'm reminded of the butler in "The Shining" . . . "I
> corrected her" . . 
> .
> 
> j
> 
> On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 12:02 PM, andie
> nachgeborenen wrote:
> 
> > But this power of correction was confined
> > within reasonable bounds;58 and the husband was
> > prohibited to use any violence to his wife, aliter
> > quam ad virum, ex causa regiminis et castigationis
> > uxoris fuae, licite et rationabiliter pertinet
> [other
> > than as licitly and reasonably pertains to the
> husband
> > for the rule and correction of his wife].
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree