One of the beta readers for Weave Me a Rope questioned the beatings administered by the two fathers. She didn’t think they would be allowed. And they certainly should not have been. In Regency England, however, while it was illegal to maim or kill a wife, child, or servant, anything else was considered to be the perogative of the male head of the household.
fathers could and did beat their children bloody. Their wives, too. English law is based on Roman law, which gave the pater familias, the father of the family, power of life and death over his household. By the modern era in Great Britain, that power no longer included the right to deliberately kill a wife, offspring, or servant, but:
“the Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Matthew Hale (1709 -1676) wrote that the common law permitted the physical discipline of wives and that husbands had immunity from prosecution if they raped their wives (Historia Placitorum Coronae, Hale, 1736 @ pp 472-474 ). He also said wives, servants, apprentices and children could be subject to ‘moderate correction’ even if such discipline caused death.” (https://womenshistorynetwork.org/history-law-violence-for-women-children-17th-century-notions-are-inexcusable/0
The same views were still in vogue one hundred and fifty years later. ‘Moderate correction’ was open to interpretation, of course, and various people tried to codify it. The phrase ‘rule of thumb’ comes from one such attempt, which held that a man could beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb.
There seems to have been a general agreement that causing permanent injury went beyond moderate correction. Indeed, in extreme cases, wives could go to the courts and seek legal protection. If they won their case, the court might make an order restraining the husband from immoderate correction.
The mind boggles. Under what circumstances would it be a good idea to take such a case then go home with a man who been embarrassed in front of his neighbors but still had the right to administer as many beatings as he liked, as long as he used a thinner stick? One can only imagine how bad things must have been for those who actually did apply to the courts for help.
As for wives, even more so for children, in a culture in which beatings were supposed to maintain the harmony of a home—for the head of the household.
To be fair to the time, corporal punishment was the norm. Schoolboys were beaten. Soldiers and sailors were beaten. Whipping and scourging were punishments for criminal behavior. However, from the middle of the nineteenth century, this would change, and the change had already begun in the home.
Already, by the Regency period, it was widely considered unbecoming for a gentleman to hurt someone weaker than himself, particularly someone completely dependent on him for food and board. Which, of course, made life better for those in the households of men who wanted to live up to this standard.
However, since no one wanted to interfere in what was seen as a private matter, abusers could safely the new idea of marital and child abuse as a social wrong. They had nothing to fear from public censure nor the law.
It would be a very long time before that changed.
Domestic (and other) violence in our times, it’s not something we can just wish away. As the saying goes, “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it” and trying to wash away the sins of the past will also condemn those of the future to ignorance and potential re-occurrence. Better to let it be known, and show how it affected those involved and best to do so in a story with made up people and situations who aren’t actually harmed.
That’s the beauty of historical fiction; it can teach as it entertains, providing knowledge to the reader in a way that they can experience it (for better or worse) and make it a part of their consciousness. I’m glad you included it in your story because it will bring awareness to others; it’s not done to be gratuitous, or as a sign of acceptance but to educate and share the experience for understanding.
The thing that is even more upsetting, in my opinion, is this reaction from your beta reader. Recent events have proven that people in our current times can be just as accepting of violence as any other. In fact it appears that the same people who vehemently and vocally protest the violence of the past are the same ones who easily condone bloodshed of innocent people, by calling it fair retribution for wrongs, and even call it good and acceptable.
With that in mind, it’s better to read about common, household violence during the distant past and acknowledge it happened (without judgment). People need to realize–with honesty!–that we’re not any better, morally virtuous, or civilized when we puff up with indignation and protest, “That’s so violent. We should censor it as if it never existed!” instead of working to eliminate and condemn violence in our present.
I don’t think my beta reader thought that domestic violence didn’t exist, or that she didn’t like seeing it written about. I think she believed that such behaviour must have been illegal, as well as morally reprehensible–that the law would intervene even with an earl or a marquess if they beat someone under their “protection”. Whereas in fact, until quite recently in history, a beaten woman or child who sought help from the authorities would be told that they must have deserved it, and that they should go back home and try harder to please. Indeed, in many parts of the world, this is still the case.