Abstract
This article explores the ways in which parricide was comprehended in England and Wales, c.1600–1760, and shows that while some parallels exist with modern explanatory models of parricide offenders, they had very different meanings in the early modern context. While both lunacy and the cruelty of parents were understood as possible contexts for parricide, neither were common. The dominant explanation was the gratuitous violence of a selfish individual who lacked compassion and who saw the parent as an obstacle—to an inheritance, riches, marriage, and freedom—to be removed. The article explores these three categories and suggests ways in which this began to change in the mid-eighteenth century.
Highlights
This article explores the ways in which parricide was comprehended in England and Wales, c.1600– 1760, and shows that while some parallels exist with modern explanatory models of parricide offenders, they had very different meanings in the early modern context
The murder of a father or mother by their son or daughter was a special form of aggravated homicide
In England and Wales, parricide was not a distinct common law or statutory offense; it was prosecuted under regular homicide law, where it constituted a small proportion of cases that came before the courts
Summary
In early modern England and Wales, where theories of social order were modeled on the ‘‘natural’’ hierarchies of the family and household, parricide was a cultural category despite not having the status of a discrete criminal offense. Some asserted that petty treason did encompass parricide.[17] Michael Dalton’s Countrey Justice (1618) included premeditated parricide among a list of circumstances that constituted petty treason: Pulton’s view notwithstanding, ‘‘it is Treason in the child, in respect of the duty of nature violated.’’ If the victim was a stepparent ‘‘with whom they dwell and do service, and have meat and drink, it is [] petty treason, such child take no wages; but the indictment shall be by the name of servant.’’ This view was reiterated by others, including Sir Matthew Hale.[18] The relationship between the wording and meaning of statutes was a perennial issue It was, after all, an interpretative act to include mistresses killed by servants within petty treason, given that the Treason Act mentioned only masters.[19] In the early nineteenth century, legal experts were still debating whether petty treason extended to children who killed parents.[20] all accepted that parricide was dreadful. They would not mention what they imagined would never be practiced.’’25 Yet early modern people imagined parricide but did so in a variety of ways
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
