WOMEN AS VICTIMS OF SEXUAL AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY HOLLAND: CRIMINAL CASES OF RAPE, INCEST, AND MALTREATMENT IN ROTTERDAM AND DELFT.

Historical research on criminality during the preindustrial period has shown significant differences between male and female criminal behaviour. Several historians have pointed out that women were disproportionately sentenced for sexual offences: adultery, fornication, concubinage, and having illegitimate children, which were considered punishable criminal behaviour. [1]

Although women were the defendants in the majority of criminal cases involving sexual offenses, men were charged as well. This article focuses on criminal activities in the field of sexual offenses in which women were the victims of male conduct during the seventeenth century. Rape, incest, and maltreatment are the crimes dealt with in this study. In order to investigate women as victims of these crimes, the judicial records of Rotterdam and Delft were examined. [2] The sentences and the examinations of perpetrators, victims, and witnesses provide information on the circumstances of female victims. These days, we clearly consider these women as victims of male behaviour. [3] The question is whether their contemporaries did so as well. Did these women view themselves as victims, and how did the community, including neighbours, friends, and family members react? Did the judges consider women who suffered rape and incest as victims or as accessories to an illegitimate relationship?

A second issue is the role of honour in criminal cases concerning sexual offenses. Several historians have emphasised the importance of honour in preindustrial society. [4] In preindustrial western society, shame was supposedly dominant in social relations, whereas in modern Western society, guilt is dominant. Some historians and anthropologists have suggested that women did not have honour, since it belonged entirely to the male realm. [5] Others have argued that women did have an honour to protect, but only in the field of sexuality. Several Dutch historians have pointed out that when it concerned reputation, women were anxious to preserve their sexual honour. [6] More recently, Florike Egmond has argued that women's reputations not only involved their sexual behaviour, but also their financial position and the care of their families.7 Immoral behaviour could also affect the reputation of a neighbourhood or a family as a whole. It is likely that honour also played an important role in court cases concernin g sexual behaviour and maltreatment. Did women in cases of sexual assault, incest, and rape put forward their good name and their loss of honour as part of their victimization? Did judges pay attention to the honour of women in their sentences? In this paper, an attempt is made to answer these questions by looking into judicial records such as sentences, interrogations, and confessions.

Rape and assault

In a recent article about rape in seventeenth-century England, Miranda Chaytor claimed that during the century a shift took place in the conception of rape. Until the mid-seventeenth century, rape was perceived as a theft; an offence against property, kinship, and community. It was not the sexuality of a woman that was at stake, but the property of a male owner. Therefore, Chaytor argues, only women who belonged to a father, a husband, or a master (a daughter, a wife, or a servant) could make public rape accusations. Furthermore, considering rape as a theft implied that women were not victims, but merely the objects of the crime. By the mid-seventeenth century, (legal) definitions of rape started to change and rape became a sexual crime. No longer was a man's property at stake, but rather the victim's resistance and innocence. [8] Chaytor's statements show the difficulties in defining rape and sexual assault in preindustrial society. The Dutch historian Hoppenbrouwers has made similar remarks when referring to kinship relations and the abduction of young girls during the late Middle Ages. Although a girl's will and consent affected the sentence, the interests of family members played a dominant role in criminal cases concerning abduction. Furthermore, abduction and rape were seen as similar offenses, for which perpetrators could be punished severely. [9] Both James Brundage and Kathryn Gravdal conclude that in early medieval Europe the legal term for abduction of a women was raptus and its standard meaning in medieval law was marriage by abduction. [10] In Germany the conception of rape started to change between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. Whereas in an act of 1276 rape had been classed as a crime of violence, a 1537 ordinance defined it as a sexual offense. [11]

In contrast to abduction, no Dutch law against rape existed during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Politieke Ordonnantie of 1580, one of Holland's most important ordinances, mentioned only abduction and incest, and that in a reference to earlier legislation of 1540. [12] In medieval England, a rape law existed, but according to Anna Clark, it was primarily formulated to deal with abduction and the illicit marriage of heiresses. The Dutch laws of 1540 and 1580 were probably also intended to protect family interests in cases of illicit marriage and abduction. [13] The marriage law of 1656 however, made seduction of 'honourable' young girls punishable by law. Moreover, family members and friends could be sentenced to death if they forced or goaded a young girl to have sexual intercourse. [14] Seventeenth-century Dutch lawyers, like Grotius and Van Leeuwen, considered rape a crime against honour or freedom. [15] Both lawyers argued that victims of rape could claim complete financial compensation for both moral and financial damages. [16] In addition, Van Leeuwen also stated that the punishment for attempted rape should be whipping and banishment. It is clear that legal definitions of rape and assault have changed over time. In Europe, important shifts in the concept of rape occurred between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the course of these centuries rape became a sexual offense rather than a property or violence offense.

English and German studies have shown that age and virginity played a crucial role in early modern rape and assault cases. John Marshall Carter found that in medieval England, juries punished differently when it concerned the rape of a virgin. In this case, men were punished by death. [17] In her study of rape in eighteenth-century England, Clark also noted that the sexual assault of children was thought to be much more unacceptable than the rape of adult women. [18] In sixteenth-century Germany, virginity certainly played a role in the conviction of rapists. Roper found that the courts focused their attention on the sexual behaviour of the woman, and not that of the man. Girls who had already lost their virginity were regarded as more culpable for their sexual relationships. Therefore, council methods revealed a pervasive distinction between sexually inexperienced virgins and sexually experienced women. [19]

During the seventeenth century in Delft and Rotterdam, fourteen men were accused and sentenced for assault and rape. Eight men were convicted of assault and six of them were sentenced for rape. Since some men had committed rape or assault more than once, there were more victims than sentences. Nearly all the cases concerned young girls and only a few of the women were married. Did marital state or age influence the sentences? [20] This seemed to be the case, since those men who had assaulted married women got away with a reprimand. The fact that these cases concerned attempted but not completed rape did not seem to affect the sentence. Both rape and assault of unmarried women resulted in more severe sentences, usually banishment penalties.

Did virginity play a crucial role in seventeenth-century Dutch rape and assault cases? Married women had already lost their virginity to their husbands, but did this mean that they were less chaste or pure? In England, legal proceedings against rapists or assailants of married women were usually started by husbands. However, rape of adult women was not frequently prosecuted and Clark found that "magistrates often instructed victims of any common assault to 'make it up'". [21] The assize records of Delft and Rotterdam, however, do not show any sign of these settlement practices. In fact, in cases of rape or assault of married women the notes of examinations, depositions, and sentences, are brief and not very informative. No information was given about circumstances, the involvement of husbands or family members, or even the scene of the crime. Barent Barentszoon, for instance, had raped several married women. How often he had committed assault remains unclear since 'several' is the only word that refers to th e number of his victims. At different times and at different places he had not only tried to seduce the women, but he also had touched them 'dishonourably'. Moreover, he attempted to have sexual intercourse with the women against their will. For this he had to beg for forgiveness in open court, and he had to promise to never do it again. [22] This sentence was clearly very light, but the question is whether marital state had something to do with it. Although the remaining cases of men attacking married women are even less informative, it is striking that no violence or force is mentioned. The depositions only report attempts to have sexual intercourse or dishonourable touching. [23]

Possibly light sentences were given simply because less severe assaults were concerned. However, the low rate of convictions for assault against married women and the conciseness of the notes could also indicate the opposite. There were no statements from husbands, relatives, or neighbours who tried to protect or restore the honour of the assaulted victims. Nor were extensive depositions of the victims themselves available. Criminal cases concerning assault against married women were rare, and those men who were prosecuted got away with a reprimand. [24] Seventeenth-century ideas about women's sexuality must have influenced the outcome of criminal rape cases. Medical practitioners pointed out that women were insatiable, since they constantly longed for male seed. Experienced women especially were thought to be sexually hungry. Therefore, it must have been harder for magistrates to believe in the chastity and innocence of married women than of young virgins. [25]

Indeed, significant differences are found in the sentences of men who had raped or assaulted young women. Firstly, all of them were punished severely, and in most cases they were sentenced to banishment. One man was even sentenced to death. [26] Secondly, in all cases, ample descriptions of the circumstances were given. The statements of parents, family members, neighbours and friends were important evidence against the rapist or assailant. Both these statements and those of the victims were noted extensively. The third difference concerns the importance of the loss of honour of girls who had been sexually assaulted. Whether it concerned attempted or completed rape, all sentence notes mentioned the loss of honour or defamation a raped or assaulted girl suffered from. [27]

A mere ten men were prosecuted for sexual violence against young women, but the number of victims was twice as high, a total of 25 girls. An extreme example of a perpetrator who had more than one victim is the story of the 44-year-old Abraham de Herder. [28] In 1695, he had been appointed as the head of the poorhouse for children of the Reformed Church in the city of Rotterdam. According to the instructions of the consistory, he had to educate the children and take care of their well-being as a father. Moreover, he had to guard their chastity and morality. The consistory especially instructed him to prevent any sexual contact between the boys and girls. Instead of following the instructions, he raped and assaulted twelve of the girls, starting in 1698. Remarkably, the girls were the ones who brought the case to the court. Besides his own confession, no other witnesses but the plaintiffs themselves provided depositions against Abraham. According to their statements, the rapes and the assaults had taken place in several rooms of the house, such as the kitchen, the bedroom, and the pantry. During the first interrogation, Abraham denied all the accusations and tried to get support from several magistrates. At his request, some of them visited him in prison, but none was willing to help him. On the sixth day after his apprehension, he partly confessed his crimes. He also wrote a letter to his wife, in which he confessed to having raped five girls and asked her to forgive him for his adultery. According to Abraham, she had not known of his sexual abuse, and some of the girls confirmed this. More remarkably, however, his wife did not seem to play any role in the trial. There were no statements from her, nor were there any notes which would indicate she had been interrogated.

Thus, there were no witnesses or statements from anyone but those who had also brought the case to court. These plaintiffs were poor uneducated girls, without any family to help or support them, in contrast to their violator, a married man who had a responsible position and powerful connections. Indeed, Abraham did try to get the support of his influential connections, but without success. Another option might have saved him. Besides rape, he had committed adultery, and in seventeenth-century Holland sexual offenses such as adultery and fornication could be bought off by payments to the public prosecutor. [29] Perhaps, the accusations were too serious to allow him to do this, but according to his statement, he had hoped to receive a pardon when he 'honestly' confessed his crimes. The judges made it very clear that the rape and assault of young girls who depended on him were considered serious offenses, and, consequently, he was sentenced to death. The striking element of this case is that despite the class d ifferences between perpetrator and victims, the latter seemed to be the more powerful. Although both Clark and Chaytor found that in seventeenth-and eighteenth-century England, nearly all accusations of rape were reported by poor women, Clark also observed that only a few men were convicted. [30] The story of Abraham could of course be an exception to the rule. Nevertheless, none of the statements and interrogations shows any suspicion or doubt on the part of the judges about the girls' honourable reputation or sincerity. The assize papers demonstrate that these girls were without doubt victims. The question whether this case was an exception can only be answered by looking into other cases.

The French soldier Jan Geraux had set his eye on a girl whom he had met at his neighbour's place. She made it very clear that she didn't want to have anything to do with him, but he decided to have her anyway. After a few drinks, he visited her at about five in the afternoon and violently dragged her out of the house. While beating her and calling her a 'whore', he pulled her along the streets and tried to rape her near one of the houses. Because of her loud screams for help, several neighbours helped her to escape. After being whipped, Geraux was sentenced to a banishment of 25 years. During the interrogations, Geraux said he had met the girl about three or four times, without any resistance from her. He also denied attacking her, but mote than four witnesses testified against him. [31] The judges seemed to be convinced of his guilt and did not even question the girl's innocence.

A similar attitude can be detected in other cases in which a relationship between perpetrator and victim clearly existed. Even marriage was mentioned in three rape cases. [32] One girl exchanged marriage vows with the man who had raped her. [33] He had already asked her to marry him, but when she refused, he followed her and raped her violently. According to her statement, she had yelled: "I would rather have you cut my throat than dishonour me." After the rape, she had cried: "You murderer of my body and thief of the crown on my head." [34] He had abused her so severely that she had to stay in bed for thirty days. Although she never allowed him to see her, he regularly visited her house during her illness and asked her numerous times to forgive him and marry him. In the end, she did promise to marry him, since she had already lost her virginity to him, and he had assured her that he would behave better. Although they had sexual intercourse several times afterward, they never got married. Even worse, six mon ths later he tried to rape another young girl. This time he had first asked the girls' parents for permission to take a walk with their daughter. He had brought her home as an honourable man and without any difficulties. Her parents even allowed him to walk her to the local laundry afterwards. He would have raped her there if the neighbours had not heard the girl screaming and shouting for help. The rescuer probably knew about his bad reputation, since he said: "Haven't you broken enough pots, do you also have to dishonour this girl?." The rapist was punished severely. After being whipped and branded on the scaffold, he had to stay in a workhouse for 12 years. Besides that, he was banished for life. [35] Both in this case and the case of the soldier Geraux, the names of the victims were not mentioned in any statement. [36] Again, the sincerity or possible guilt of the victims was not questioned. The rapist was the one who had to be interrogated. The girls provided evidence against him, with the help of witnes ses, and certainly were not on trial themselves. No questions were even asked why the first girl allowed her rapist, and later fiance, to sleep with her. Marriage vows or not, sexual intercourse before marriage was prohibited by law. She could have been convicted, but was not, and it appears that the judges considered her merely the victim who had had no choice but to act the way she did. [37]

It seems that in cases of rape or assault, judges were inclined to give young girls the benefit of the doubt. In the case of 17-year-old Grietje, for example, it was quite unclear whether she had been forced to have sexual intercourse with her supposed assailant. Both her mother and a friendly neighbour testified that he violently dragged her out of the house, while swearing and threatening her with a knife. According to the accused soldier Anthony, there had been no need to use violence since she herself had requested him to have sexual intercourse with her. During the first interrogation, she confirmed her mother's story and stated that she had been forced to accompany him. Later on, however, she only confessed to having had sexual intercourse, without mentioning rape or force. Whether her mother had intended to protect her daughter's honour or to prevent her from being convicted remains unclear, but her statement certainly influenced the sentence. The judges did not however believe the statements about fo rce and coercion unconditionally, since Grietje got a reprimand. The accused soldier was sentenced to 10 days on bread and water. Had rape been proved, he would presumably have been punished more severely. [38]

A completely different attitude towards the victim is found in the case of the married Chieltje Claes. While her husband was abroad with the East India Company, she earned her living by working as a cleaning lady. Once, while she was cleaning a house, a male neighbour entered the house and grabbed her from behind. According to her statement, she had tried to evade him, but he had thrown her on the bed and raped her. Afterwards he had promised to take financial care of the child, in the event she became pregnant. [39] Since he could not write, a female neighbour provided a letter in which he promised to give her money in any case (even if she did nor get pregnant). When Chieltje Claes tried to get hold of the letter, her rapist became angry and threatened her, saying: "I will see to it that you are put on the scaffold." During the interrogation, her violator admitted there had been a letter, but added that the letter was full of lies and only written by neighbours in order to ruin his good reputation. Since a ll testifying neighbours were acquainted with the perpetrator, nobody spoke on her behalf. The judges decided that no rape, but only adultery of a married woman had occurred. For this she was banished for 50 years, while her perpetrator was sentenced to a banishment of only 10 years. Although Chieltje Claes had described the rape twice in her confessions, no rape or assault was mentioned in the final sentencing report. [40] Her perpetrator had initiated the act by touching her 'dishonourably', but as a married woman she could have resisted him. No remarks about possible innocence on the victim's part were made. In the judge's mind, there were no doubts about her role. She was guilty of committing adultery by having sexual intercourse. Therefore, her perpetrator was not sentenced for rape or assault, but merely for having had sexual intercourse with a married woman. [41] This case seems to prove even mote clearly that married victims of rape and assault were treated differently in criminal cases. [42] No remar ks about 'stolen' honour, no supportive statements of neighbours and not even a glimmer of doubt on the part of the judges about the guilt of the victim existed.

Incest

In the act of 1580, forbidden degrees of kinship were extensively prescribed. Marriage as well as sexual intercourse with in-laws, such as brother-in-law with sister-in-law and stepfather with stepdaughter, were also prohibited. [43] Both marriage and sexual relationships with blood relatives could lead to severe punishment. [44] Seventeenth-century Dutch lawyers made clear distinctions between incestus juris civilis and incestus juris gentum. The first referred to incest between in-laws. The latter referred to incest between blood relatives, in which case death-sentences could be imposed. [45] However, voluntary sexual relationships or marriages between kinsmen or in-laws will not be addressed here. Since this article deals with abusive behaviour only, criminal cases involving abusive incestuous relationships have been selected. [46]

Only seven criminal cases of sexual abuse by family members were recorded in Rotterdam and Delft during the seventeenth century. They all concerned sexual abuse of young girls by one of their male relatives, or at any rare the abuse had started at an early age. [47] Four victims had been abused by their stepfather or father, the others by an uncle, a brother, and a brother-in-law. [48] It seems likely that, compared to rape and assault cases, the magistrates would show a corresponding attitude towards incest victims. One would expect that the abused girls would be viewed as victims and not as equal partners in an illegitimate sexual relationship. However, whether it concerned young stepdaughters or adult sister-in-laws, the judges did not seem to consider them as victims. Seventeenth-century moralists considered young girls who had reached puberty or were already menstruating equally responsible in sexual offenses. Thus, as contemporaries were of the opinion that women were sexually insatiable, fertile young girls were accessories to an incestuous relationship. [49] Even so, one would expect that magistrates would take young girls' sexual experience into account, as they did in rape and assault charges.

Only two of the incest victims were not condemned. [50] The others were given severe banishment penalties. Whether they were sentenced or not, all seven cases concerned women or girls who had been raped at a young age by a family member. Thirteen-year old Jannetje, for example, declared that her stepfather had raped her several times while her mother was outdoors. When she threatened to scream for help, he put a knife to her chest and threatened to stab her if she resisted. Later, when he noticed she was pregnant, he tried to abort the child by forcing her to drink soapsuds. [51] According to her statement, her mother had had no knowledge of either the rape or the pregnancy, since her stepfather had withheld the whole matter. When she declared under oath that she had had no sexual intercourse with anyone other than her stepfather, the magistrates decided that she should not be convicted. [52] Being pregnant, she must have been fertile and had therefore reached the stage at which women were expected to be sex ually insatiable. Therefore, in the eyes of most contemporary moralists, she must have been an accessory to the sexual relationship with her father. Nevertheless, the magistrates judged that she had not been guilty of incest, since it had been forced upon her and it had happened against her own free will. Obviously, the sexual experiences of girls who had been raped by family members influenced the outcome of the sentence.

Supportive statements of family members could affect the outcome as well. This seemed to be the reason why the other incest victim was not condemned. Miller Jan Janszoon had sexually abused his niece in the absence of his wife. He confessed that since his niece had screamed and yelled so loudly, he had been afraid of being heard by the neighbours. Since his niece had complained about his behaviour to her aunt, he had promised to never touch her again. According to his wife's statement and his own confession he raped the girl three different times afterwards. Probably owing to her aunt's supportive statement the niece was not convicted. [53] It might seem strange that a wife testified against her husband, but in nearly all criminal cases concerning incest, other family members were involved as witnesses. However, evidence provided by kinsmen against the perpetrator did not guarantee the victim's release from prosecution. One case in which six relatives were involved shows this very clearly. We will come back to this later.

Sexual intercourse with men other than the abuser affected the sentence negatively. In a case quite similar to the above, Dirkje Jans was banished for life, after being whipped. Like Jannetje, she had been raped and threatened by her stepfather during her mother's absence. Even worse, as a result of her stepfather's maltreatment, she had become a cripple. When she declared that she had had sexual intercourse with another man, the magistrates concluded that since the prisoner is not completely sane, she will not be sentenced to the extraordinary punishment. [54] This conclusion is striking in two ways. Firstly, her statements do not show any sign of insanity, but since the statements are the only evidence of her alleged insanity, it is hard to tell what exactly the judges meant by 'not completely sane'. Secondly, why was she whipped and banished for life, while she was considered to be unaccountable for her acts? What did the judges mean by 'extraordinaris' punishment? According to Roodenburg, seventeenth-cen tury lawyers debated capital punishment in incest cases. Some jurists proposed that death sentences could be imposed, provided that the case concerned an incestuous relationship between blood relatives. Joos de Damhouder, for example, stressed that incest between a man and his mother, sister, daughter or niece should be punished with a death penatly on the scaffold. The lawyer Van Leeuwen argued that incest should indeed be punished more seriously than adultery, but he objected to death penalties. [55] In this regard, he referred to an affair in 1612 in which a mother and son were whipped and banished for life. [56] Indeed, adultery had been committed by Jannetje and her stepfather. Yet they were not blood relatives, but merely in-laws. Court members were not inclined to sentence those who committed incest to death in any case. Perpetrators and victims of incest were rarely sentenced to death. [57] Neeltje Cornelis was raped several times by her brother. Although she was married, her husband was not able to p revent his wife from being raped. One night her brother threw her husband violently out of the bed in order to sleep with his own sister. In this case, adultery with a blood relative had been committed. Therefore the judges reported that "he should be sentenced to death." But he was nor. According to the sentence report, he was whipped and imprisoned for life in a workhouse. [58]

Although most committers of incest were sentenced to banishment for life, it is not surprising that magistrates were not entirely consistent in imposing punishments. There were no strict prescriptions for penalizing the crime of incest, and this was characteristic of those applied to most criminal activities, since no central codification of penal legislation existed in the Dutch Republic. [59] Moreover, as lawyers debated various penalties for incest, there obviously was no unanimity about the correct punishment. Indeed, the judges of Delft were not always sure about the correctness of their judgement in criminal cases of incest. Before deciding which penalty should be imposed on Neelrje Cornelis and her brother, they obtained the advice of legal experts. [60] After being advised, the magistrates determined that neither Neeltje nor her brother should be sentenced to death. Since her brother was also guilty of theft, the judges imposed a severer punishment upon him, while Neeltje was imprisoned for forty yea rs.

Committing incest and adultery at the same time was usually called 'the crime of adultery with incest' by the magistrates. This formulation seems to imply that the accusation mainly concerned adultery. Indeed, in some cases, the sentence corresponded with punishments which were usually given to adulterers. The niece of miller Jan Janszoon was not convicted, but the punishment given to her uncle is surprising. He was sentenced to whipping, branding, and a banishment of 50 years. Since he had also committed theft and another violent offence, the whipping and branding were probably meant for these crimes. As the law of 1580 prescribed a penalty of 50 years of banishment for adulterers, he was apparently convicted of adultery rather than incest. [61]

Sexual inexperience of the girl and supportive statements of family member did not necessarily prevent incest victims from being punished. The case of sixteen-year-old Maria shows that very clearly. Maria had been raped by her father since the age of thirteen. According to her statement she had not known exactly what he had done to her, but her father had told her "I have to do this to you. All fathers have to do it with their children." One of her aunts confirmed this story to the magistrates, adding that she had been worried about the whole situation for a long time. Both her grandparents, two of her uncles and their wives, two neighbours, and one friend of her father's testified in this case. Most strikingly, none of them expressed any concern about the girl. They all declared that Maria had been locked up by her father when he had noticed she was pregnant. Moreover, she had become ill because of all sorts of potions he had given her in order to abort the child. Relatives as well as neighbours and her fat her's friend only expressed concern about the moral damage and dishonour the matter could cause. Her uncles had warned their brother about the bad rumours that were circulating about the affair in the neighbourhood. At that time, her father had told the family and neighbours that his daughter had been raped by a soldier, but clearly all the relatives were aware of the true story. Although Maria had confided in both her aunts, none of the family members tried to help her, nor did any of them show any compassion for the girl. Both Maria and her father were sentenced to banishment for life. [62]

Apparently, the fact that she had clearly been forced did not prevent her from being punished. Nor did her statement, in which she declared to have been ignorant of the acts of her father. Whether she was truly unaware of "exactly what he had done to her" can never be determined, but it is striking that some other victims made similar remarks. Thirty-seven-year old Trijntje stated that her brother-in-law had started to have sexual intercourse with her when she was only fourteen years old. At that time, she claimed, she "had not known what a man was." In other words, she had been ignorant of the fact that she was having sexual intercourse. [63] Maritje de Jongh from Haarlem also claimed that she had not known exactly what her father did to her, and she therefore had not realized it was wrong. [64] All three of them were given severe banishment penalties. The fact that the girls were 13,14, and 18 years old respectively when the sexual abuse had started shows that age did not play any role in this. [65] Remark ably, none of the rape victims claimed to have been ignorant about the implication of the perpetrators acts. On the contrary, in nearly all criminal cases concerning rape and assault, the sentence report referred to the loss of honour of young girls by being raped or assaulted. Apparently, in these cases the victims were well aware of the fact that they had had sexual intercourse, although against their will. Roodenburg has pointed out that offering resistance, screaming, and shouting during the rape could make a difference in sentences concerning incest and rape. [66] However, the criminal records of Rotterdam and Delft do not confirm this supposition entirely. Indeed, the testimony of witnesses who had seen or heard a victim resist or scream provided complementary evidence which convinced the judges even more of the rape victim's innocence. As the former incest cases show, judges treated incest victims differently. It is hard to tell whether incest victims were aware of this different attitude, but it might explain why some of them claimed to have been ignorant. Being ignorant implied that they were too young and pure to know anything about sexual activity and that they could not possibly have known what their abusers had done to them. Thus, by claiming they had had no notion of committing the crime of incest (when being sexually abused), they perhaps hoped that the magistrates would consider them to be innocent. Therefore, the sentences of two ostensibly similar cases could differ significantly. Since the above-mentioned Dirkje had had sexual intercourse with another man, the magistrates probably judged that she must have been fully conscious of the illegal sexual activities her father had committed with her.

It is hard to draw any conclusion from only seven criminal cases of sexual abuse by family members. Nevertheless, compared to rape and assault, some differences are striking. Criminal cases of incest show that girls who were sexually abused by family members were not viewed as victims. Evidently, incest was considered to be a major crime. [67] Even though statements by victims and witnesses clearly showed the innocence and ignorance of the accused girls, the magistrates considered them to be accessories to incest. A plausible explanation for this is mentioned by the Dutch historian Florike Egmond. She suggested that the 'offence-oriented' legal mentality of seventeenth-century judges implied the definition of children as accomplices or co-offenders in many cases of incest and sodomy. [68] Even so, two girls were not convicted, while their situation did not differ significantly from the other victims. Sexual activity with others than the abuser probably affected the outcome of the sentence. Whether age or fer tility was of decisive importance remains uncertain. Magistrates were at any rate not entirely consistent in their judgements concerning incest.

Maltreatment of wives

In seventeenth-century Holland, women were allowed to start legal proceedings independently. Formally, unmarried women and women below their majority of twenty had needed a guardian through whom to proceed in legal action. In practice, however, women were rarely assisted by guardians when starting a lawsuit. [69] According to the law, married women were subject to their husband's legal authority, but this did not necessarily imply that husbands could misuse their legal position. [70] Grotius argued that husbands who abused their rights of legal guardianship by treating their wives with cruelty should be brought to court. Furthermore, fines should be imposed the first time a husband was sentenced for maltreatment. If the maltreatment continued, more severe punishments should be imposed. [71] Indeed, foreign visitors expressed their surprise when seeing that in the Dutch Republic, wife beating was severely frowned upon. [72]

Thus, in cases of maltreatment by their husbands, women had recourse to the legal process and some of them used that right. [73] Indeed, during the period investigated, forty-five men were convicted of maltreatment of their wives, fiancees or mistresses. One man was even sentenced for harassing his ex-wife. [74] On three occassions the maltreatment resulted in the death of a spouse, but none of the husbands was sentenced to death. In all three cases, the magistrates explained their sentence by pointing out that no certainty existed about the actual cause of the victim's death. Clearly all three women were severely injured by their husbands, but according to the doctors, their death could have been caused by infection associated with the injuries. As the magistrates followed the judgement of the doctors, they declared that no direct relation between the maltreatment and the death could be proven. Nonetheless, had they been caught for any crime the second time, all three men would have been sentenced to death. [75] The three cases have other similarities. All three husbands had been drunk when they violated their wives. Furthermore, as all three wives had strongly objected to their drinking behaviour, a serious quarrel had occurred, which resulted in the maltreatment. It was not uncommon for maltreatment to occur in combination with the use of alcohol. In fact, a quarter of the men who were accused of maltreatment were drunk when they committed their crime. [76] Petrus from Rotterdam confessed that he had been so drunk that others had to tell him afterwards he had stabbed his wife with a foil. Although he declared that he loved his wife dearly and that he truly regretted the maltreatment, he was discharged from his office and expelled from the city of Rotterdam. [77]

The Dutch historian Donald Haks has stated that neighbours were often involved in matrimonial disputes and maltreatment within the marriage. Neighbours intervened especially when fights between spouses caused disturbance and noise. [78] Neighbours also provided substantial evidence in many criminal cases of maltreatment. Breaking the peace appeared to be of vital importance in the accusation and conviction of wife-beaters. Not infrequently, the neighbours were the plaintiffs in matters concerning maltreatment. Corstiaen Louriss, for instance, molested his wife because he was not allowed to have sexual intercourse with her as she suffered from a venereal disease. [79] Since the harassment of his wife caused great noise and disturbance, the neighbours decided to complain to the public prosecutor in order to have him arrested. Corstiaen was given a banishment penalty of two years. [80] Jeronimus had also been arrested for beating his mistress because his neighbours had complained about the nuisance it caused. I nitially, he got away with a reprimand, but he was banished for six years when he continued his violent behaviour. [81] Though not discernible in the criminal records of Delft and Rotterdam, maltreatment involved the honour of the molested wives as well. In Amsterdam, public notaries regularly recorded women's statements about the insulting maltreatment of their husbands. [82]

A woman who shared a household with her lover without being married was usually called a 'kept woman'. [83] Albeit clearly involved in an illegitimate sexual relationship, some mistresses did not hesitate to bring their abusive lovers to court. Furthermore, the maltreated mistresses were never prosecuted for concubinage or sexual intercourse. [84] After a serious quarrel, the mistress of Jan Compeijn hid herself in one of the neighbour's houses. Nevertheless, he found her, threatened to stab her with a knife, and broke several windows of the neighbours' house. As he was not solely convicted for maltreatment, but for an act of violence as well, he was banished for 12 years. [85] Of all the criminal cases concerning maltreatment, six concerned the molestation of a mistress, and one the maltreatment of a fiancee. [86]

Sometimes wives themselves saved their husbands from being prosecuted for maltreatment. Leendert Jans not only beat his wife regularly, but he also cheated on her with several other women. The neighbours decided to take action and informed the magistrates of his improper behaviour. After being apprehended, his wife asked the magistrates to not punish him. Initially, they refused, but as she kept on asking for pardon, they finally simply ordered him to stay away from his former neighbourhood.[87] Causing noise and disturbances in the neighbourhood was probably not the only reason for the community to intervene. Neighbours were also anxious about the reputation of their community. Whenever individual community members crossed the borderline of decent or honourable behaviour, neighbourhoods could feel threatened as a whole. [88] Though from an earlier date, one criminal case concerning maltreatment shows this clearly. Daniel from Rotterdam was accused by his neighbours in 1562 because the maltreatment of his wi fe brought 'shame and disgrace' on his fellow neighbours. [89] For that reason, Leendert was not allowed to return to his former neighbourhood. In Rotterdam, neighbours regularly requested the magistrates to expel dishonourable community members from the neighbourhood. The accusations could involve prenuptial fornication, bridal pregnancy, adultery and severe maltreatment of wives and husbands also. [90]

Although wives obviously suffered from being maltreated by their husbands, other interests could be of greater importance. Firstly, a convicted husband was not able to care for his family, since banishment or imprisonment evidently entailed the loss of one's livelihood. Thus, conviction of the breadwinner presumably led to poverty. Secondly, being convicted brought not only shame and dishonour on the accused, but on his wife and children as well. [92] A letter which was sent by wife-molester Elias Cammer during his imprisonment shows this very clearly. Elias had been arrested for maltreating his wife and behaving dishonourably during wedding festivities. [93] He had forced his wife to play 'Adam and Eve', whereby she had to undress in the presence of the wedding guests. His wife had started legal proceedings against him, while several acquaintances provided complementary evidence against him. Since the accusations were too serious to be excused, he asked his wife to plead to his advantage. When she refused, he wrote a second letter, in which he reasoned that she had to help him because his release could only be to her benefit. He asked her dramatically, "Do thou then want the eternal destruction and ruination of me and of you and of all ours?" and "Do not grieve us any more, it is yet enough, and do not let it come any further." He argued that she had to help him out of 'grief and shame' because otherwise 'we shall be criminalized'. Furthermore, he warned that "we won't keep a penny in the world, and what will thou begin when I am gone." Finally, Elias succeeded in persuading his wife, and eight days later he was released from imprisonment. [94] Evidently, his wife was frightened by the prospect of being left in poverty and dishonour.

Thus, protection of one's reputation and financial consequences did influence a woman's decision to bring her husband to court. The criminal records can only show maltreatment cases which resulted in legal action, initiated by wives or neighbours. As with all criminal activities, actual figures about maltreatment can never be determined. Nonetheless, since maltreatment also concerned the reputation of a neighbourhood, perpetrators were probably accused more often than rapists and assailants.

Concluding remarks

This article started with questions about the postion of women in criminal cases of rape, incest, and maltreatment. Did contemporaries consider women who suffered from rape, incest, and maltreatment as victims of sexual and physical abuse? Furthermore, did honour play any role in these court cases?

It appears that marital state and sexual experience influenced the judges' attitude towards rape and assault victims. Rape and assault of young women were considered serious crimes for which perpetrators were punished severely. The statements of family members, neighbours, friends, and the victims themselves were noted extensively. Loss of honour seemed to play an important role in these cases. Whether it concerned attempted or completed rape, all sentence notes mentioned the loss of honour or defamation young girls suffered. However, judges showed a completely different attitude in rape and assault cases of married women. Most sentence notes were brief and not very informative. Furthermore, none of the sentence notes mentioned loss of honour, and no supportive statements of family members or neighbours were included. Moreover, judges were sometimes inclined to put equal blame on the victim. In any case, courts gave little attention to the rape and assault of married women.

Though also suffering from sexual abuse, victims of incest were treated differently. Remarkably, girls who were sexually abused by family members were rarely considered as victims. Even though the statements of victims and witnesses clearly showed the innocence and ignorance of the accused girls, the magistrates usually considered them accessories to the crime of incest. This might explain why girls regularly claimed to be completely ignorant of the sexual implication of the act. Unlike incest victims, girls who were raped did emphasize the sexual implication of the crime. They were anxious to bring forward their good reputation, and they stressed that the perpetrator's acts had brought shame and dishonour on them. As incest victims were raped by family members, their honour could hardly be restored. By claiming they had had no notion of committing any sexual crime, incest victims probably hoped that the magistrates would consider them innocent.

The different attitudes towards rape and incest could also be explained by the importance of the criminal act itself. Incest was considered a major crime, and forbidden degrees of kinship were extensively prescribed in the act of 1580. Therefore, those who committed incest were supposed to be fully aware of the illegitimacy of their acts.

Neighbours were involved in all accusations concerning sexual and physical abuse, but they were of prime importance in maltreatment cases. Frequently neighbours were plaintiffs if husbands molested their wives. Causing noise and disturbances in the neighbourhood were reasons for the community to intervene. Perhaps even more important, severe maltreatment could bring shame and dishonour on the neighbourhood. Therefore, neighbours regularly requested the magistrates to expel maltreaters from their neighbourhood. The prospect of shame and dishonour by having a convicted husband could also exert influence on the decision of maltreated wives to support their husbands in criminal court. Supportive statements from maltreated wives could result in the maltreater's release. Financial interests were also of decisive importance, as banishment or imprisonment of the breadwinner evidently led to the loss of income.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether raped, assaulted, and maltreated women were viewed as victims by contemporaries. Criminal records show that judges, neighbours, and plaintiffs made significant distinctions among these offenses. According to current views of sexual abuse, raped, assaulted, or maltreated women are without any doubt the victims of their perpetrators. The modern perspective is that victim and perpetrator are prime subjects in such criminal cases. However, seventeenth-century lawyers, judges, plaintiffs, accused, and witnesses did not focus their attention on victim and perpetrator only. Egmond rightly pointed out that judges were also focused on the crime itself. This so-called 'offence-oriented' legal mentality implied that young girls were seen as accomplices or co-offenders in many cases of incest. Furthermore, these criminal cases not only concerned the honour and reputation of the victim and the perpetrator, but also of neighbours and family members. Indeed, although the l atter did not did stand trial or risk conviction, their good reputation was endangered as well.

Abstract: Manon van der Heijden, "Women as Victims of Sexual and Domestic Violence in Seventeenth-Century Holland: Criminal Cases of Rape, Incest, and Maltreatment in Rotterdam and Delft"

This article started with questions about the position of women in criminal cases of rape, incest, and maltreatment in seventeenth-century Holland. Did contemporaries consider women who suffered from rape, incest, and maltreatment as victims of sexual and physical abuse? Furthermore, did honour play any role in these court cases? The purpose of this study was to determine whether raped, assaulted, and maltreared women were viewed as victims by contemporaries. Criminal records show that judges, neighbours, and plaintiffs made significant distinctions among these offenses. According to current views of sexual abuse, raped, assaulted, or maltreated women are without any doubt the victims of their perpetrators. The modern perspective is that victim and perpetrator are prime subjects in such criminal cases. However, seventeenth-century lawyers, judges, plaintiffs, accused, and witnesses did not focus their attention on victim and perpetrator only. Egmond rightly pointed out that judges were also focused on the cri me itself. This so-called 'offence-oriented' legal mentality implied that young girls were seen as accomplices or co-offenders in many cases of incest. Furthermore, criminal cases of rape, incest and maltreatment not only concerned the honour and reputation of the victim and the perpetrator, but also of neighbours and family members. Indeed, although the latter did not stand trial or risk conviction, their good reputation was endangered as well.

ENDNOTES

Part of this article was presented at the European Social Science History Conference in Noordwijkerhout (the Netherlands) on May 10, 1996. For a more elaborate account I refer to my dissertation: Huwelijk in Holland. Sredelijke rechrspraak en kerkelijke tucht, 1550-1700 (Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1998). I would like to thank Willem Frijhoff and Pieter Spierenburg for their comments.

(1.) Several studies on the subject: C.Z. Wiener, "Sex roles and crime in late Elizabethan Hertfordshire," Journal of Social History 8 (1975): 38-49; J.M. Beattie, "The criminality of women in eighteenth-century England," Journal of Social History 8 (1975): 80-116; Crime and the courts in England, 1660-1800 (Oxford, 1986); Els Kloek, "Criminaliteit en sexe in de confessieboeken van Leiden, 1678-1794," in: Wie hij zij, man of wijf. Vrouwengeschidenis in de vroegmoderne tijd (Ph.D. thesis Hilversum: Verloren, 1990); Lotte van de Pol, Vrouwen en criminaliteit in Amsterdam in het derde kwart van de 17e eeuw (unpublished master thesis, University of Amsterdam 1975).

(2.) This article is based on the criminal records of Rotterdam and Delft: Gemeente Archief Rotterdam (G.A.R.), Criminele Sententie Boeken (S.B.), inv.nrs. 244-252, Criminele Examenboeken (E.B.), inv.nrs. 139-142, Correctieboeken (Cor.B.), inv.nrs. 266-268; Gemeente Archief Delft (G.A.D.), Criminele Boeken (C.B.), inv.nrs. 46-50, Confessieboeken (Conf.B.), inv.nrs. 57-61.

(3.) Numerous recent studies deal with women as victims of rape, incest, and maltreatment, e.g., Colleen A. Ward, Attitudes towards rape: feminist and social psychological perspectives (London, 1995); Charles Loyd and Roy Walmsley, Changes in rape offences and sentencing (London, 1989); Sylana Tomaselli & Roy Porter, Rape. An Historical and Social Enquiry (Oxford, 1989); Lori L. Heise, Violence against women: the hidden health burden (Washington D.C., 1994); Marloes Kusters, De Nederlandse incest-hausse in historisch perspectief (unpublished master thesis, Erasmus University Rorterdam, 1991).

(4.) See, for example: F.P. van Oostrom, Her woord van eer. Literatuur aan her Hollandse hof omstreeks 1400 (Amsterdam, 1992).

(5.) Anton Blok, "Eer en de fysieke persoon," Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis 18 (1980): 211-230; David D. Gilmore, Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (Washington, 1987); See, for a short overview, Hans de Waardt, "Ehrenhandel, Gewalt und Liminalitat: ein Konzeptualieserungsvorschlag," in: Klaus Schreiner and Gerd Schwerhoff, Verletzte Ehre. Ehrkonflikte in Gesellschaften des Mittelaters und der Fruhen Neuzeit (Koln, 1995), pp. 303-319.

(6.) Herman Roodenburg, Onder censuur. De kerkelijke tucht in de gereformeerde gemeente van Amsterdam, 1578-1700 (Hilversum, 1990); Annemieke Keunen, "'Ongaarne beticht en bevlekt'. Vrouwen en mannen en hun beledigingen voor de Correcrionele Rechtbank te Amsterdam, 1811-1838," in: A. Keunen & H. Roodenburg (ed.), Schimpen en schelden. Eer en belediging in Nederland, ca. 1600- ca. 1850 (an edition of the Volkskundig Bulletin, Amsterdam, 1992), pp. 415-413; Lotte van de Pol, "Prostitutie en de Amsterdamse burgerij: Eerbegrippen in een vroegmoderne stedelijke samenleving," in: P. te Boekhorst, P. Burke and W. Frijhoff (ed.), Cultuur en maatschappij, 1500-1850 (Meppel, 1992): 179-217.

(7.) Florike Egmond, "Erezaken rond een echtelijk conflict in het zestiende-eeuwse Haarlem," Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 107 (1994): 3-22.

(8.) Miranda Chaytor, "Husbandry: Narratives of Rape in the Seventeenth Century," Gender and History vol. 7,3 (1995): 378-407.

(9.) P.C.M. Hoppenbrouwers, "Maagschap en vriendschap. Een beschouwing over de structuren en functies van verwantschapsbetrekkingen in het laat-middeleeuwse Holland," Holland, 17 (1985): 69-108. See also: L. Th. Maes, Vijf eeuwen stedelijk strafrecht (Antwerpen/Den Haag, 1947), pp. 221-228; Vanhemelryck, De criminaliteit in de ammanie van Brussel van de late middeleeuwen tot het einde van her ancien regime (1404-1789) (Brussel, 1981), pp. 149-154; See for abduction among the nobility of Holland: Henk van Nierop, The nobility of Holland. From knights to regents, 1500-1650 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 82-92.

(10.) Vein L. Bullough & James Brundage, Sexual practices & the Medieval Church (New York 1982), p. 141-8; Kathryn Gravdal, Ravishing maidens. Writing Rape in Medieval French Literature and Law (Philadelphia, 1991), p.6.

(11.) Lyndall Roper, The Holy Household. Women and Morals in Reformation Augsburg (Oxford, 1989), pp.82-84. See for rape in England during the fourteenth century: Barbara Hanawalt, Crime and conflict in English Communities, 1300-1348 (Cambridge/London, 1979), pp. 104-110.

(12.) A.S. de Blecourt & D.N. Japikse, Klein Plakkaatboek van Nederland (Groningen/Den Haag, 1919), pp. 126-134, 130. The Politieke Ordonnantie of 1580 was enacted by the States of Holland and applied to the province of Holland, which included the cities of Rotterdam and Delft.

(13.) Anne Clark, Women's silence, men's violence. Sexual assault in England: 1770-1845 (London/New York, 1987), p. 47.

(14.) De Blecourt & Japikse, Klein Plakkaatboek, pp. 275-287. The marriage act of 1656 had been enacted by the States General and offically it covered the Generaliteitslanden or southern parts of Holland only. However, in practice the regulations were also applied to the province of Holland.

(15.) Definition by Van Leeuwen of rape: "dishonouring a woman with violence and against her own will." Simon van Leeuwen, Her Rooms-Hollands-Regt (Amsterdam, 1708), p. 471.

(16.) Hugo de Groot, Inleidinge rot de Hollandsche Rechts-geleerdheid (Leiden, 1952) dl. III, 35, p. 308; Van Leeuwen, Rooms-Hollands-Regt, p. 467-469.

(17.) John Marshall Carter, Rape in Medieval England. A Historical and Sociological Study (Lanham, 1985), p. 154; James Brundage has also stated that sexual molestation of a girl who had nor yet reached puberty merited the death penalty under all circumstances: James A. Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago, 1987), p. 531. In the city of Mechelen (during the 17th century), only rapists of young unmarried virgins were sentenced to death. Attempts to rape young virgins were punished with eternal banishment: L.Th.Maes, Vijf eeuwen stedelijk strafrecht, p. 228.

(18.) Clark, Women's silence, p. 49.

(19.) Roper, The Holy Household, pp. 84-5.

(20.) In Roman law, a distinction was made between the rape of a virgin and a married woman: L.Th. Maes, Vijf eeuwen stedelijk strafrecht, pp. 225-228; Norman Bryson, "Two Narratives of Rape in Visual Arts: Lucretia and the Sabine Women," in: Tomaselli & Porter, Rape. An Historical and Social Enquiry, pp. 152-173.

(21.) Clark, Women's silence, p. 50-1. According to Vanhemelryck, married women often witheld the rape from their husband, since they felt dishonoured and were afraid to incur their husband's displeasure. Both Vanhemelryck and Maes stated that legal proceedings against a rapist were usually started by someone other than the victim: Vanhemelryck, De criminaliteit in de ammanie van Brussel, p. 150-1; Maes, Vijf eeuwen stedelijk strafrecht, p. 227.

(22.) G.A.D., C.B. 47, fol. 325 (1618).

(23.) Ibidem: "pogen om zijn wille daer van te gecrijgen, ende bij haer te slapen, deselve vrouwen anransende ende oneerlijck antastende."

(24.) A "reprimand" usually implied begging the forgiveness in court. Ingram also found that during the 16th and 17th centuries, prosecutions for immodest behaviour on the part of married females were strikingly rare and, when such behaviour occurred, it was dealt with leniently by the church courts: Martin Ingram, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England, 1570-1640 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 241-2.

(25.) Rudolf Dekker and Herman Roodenburg, "Humor in de zeventiende eeuw. Opvoeding, huwelijk en sexualireit in de moppen van Arnout van Overbeke (1632-1674)," Tijdschrift voor Social Geschiedenis 35 (1984): 258; Maria-Theresa Leuker and Herman Roodenburg, "'Die dan hare wyven laten afweyen'. Overspel en schande in de zeventiende eeuw," in: G. Hekma and H. Roodenburg, Soete minne en helsche boosheit: sexuele voorstellingen in Nederland, 1300-1850 (Nijmegen, 1988), pp. 61-84, 69-70; Donald Haks, "Libertinisme en Nederlands verhalend proza 1650-1700," Soete minne en helsche boosheit, pp. 85-108, 98; Roper, The Holy Household, p. 85-86.

(26.) G.A.R., S.B. 252, fol. 63-65 (1700), E.B. 143 (1700).

(27.) De Waardt also found that during the sixteenth century women were anxious to restore their honour when they had been touched by men: De Waardt, "Ehrenhandel," pp. 315-16.

(28.) G.A.R., S.B. 252, fol. 63-65 (1700), E.B. 143 (1700), Consistory notes of the Reformed Church of Rotterdam, inv.nr. 7, fol. 507 (1695). This case is also mentioned by Florike Egmond: "Children in Court: Children and Criminal Justice in the Dutch Republic," Social and Legal Studies vol. 2 (1993): 73-90.

(29.) For settlement practices in criminal cases, see: L. Hovy, "Schikking in strafzaken in Holland tijdens de Republiek," in: Scrinium et scriptura (Groningen, 1980), pp. 413-429; S.J. Fockema Andreae, De Nederlandse staat onder de Republiek (Amsterdam, 1985), pp. 132-145; Pieter Spierenburg, The spectacle of suffering (Cambridge, 1984), p. 121-123; Sjoerd Faber, Strafrechtspleging en criminaliteit te Amsterdam, 1680-1811 (Arnhem, 1983), pp. 79-80; Veronique Verhaar and Frits van der Brink, "De bemoeienissen van stad en kerk met overspel in het achttiende-eeuwse Amsterdam," in: S. Faber (ed.), Nieuw licht op oude justitie. Misdaad en straf ten tijde van de Republiek (Muiderberg, 1989), pp. 64-93.

(30.) Clark, Women's silence, p. 21-45, 58; Chaytor, "Husbandry," p. 381. For class differences in criminal court cases in the Dutch Republic, see : Faber, Strafrechrspleging en criminaliteit, pp. 18-19; Fockemae Andreae, De Nederlandse staat onder de Republiek, pp. 132-145.

(31.) G.A.D., C.B. 49, fol. 173 (1666). The following witnesses were involved: one old female neighbour, two unknown male withnesses and several (no number given) male neighbours.

(32.) According to Hanawalt, in 14th-century England rape could be a prelude to marriage, especially when there was resistance on the part of the victim's family. There were cases in which women later married the rapist: Hanawalt, Crime and conflict, p. 106.

(33.) Seventeenth-century farces regularly mentioned young women marrying their seducers in order to avoid complete shame and dishonour: Leuker and Roodenburg, "Overspel en schande," p. 79.

(34.) Remarkably, the girl's words referred explicitly to the loss of honour she would suffer from being raped. As she even calls her rapist a thief who stole her honour, it seems that the definition of rape had become a mixture of medieval ideas and 17th-century morals about rape.

(35.) G.A.R., S.B. 252, fol. 77-81 (1700).

(36.) Usually, both the names of perpetrators and victims were mentioned in sentence reports or statements. The names of the victims were probably not mentioned in order to protect the victims from public dishonour.

(37.) The act of 1580 did nor explicitly mention sexual intercourse as a distinct crime. In the marriage act of 1656, however, clear distinctions were made between concubinage and sexual intercourse: De Blecourt and Japikse, Klein plakkaatboek, pp. 127 and 281. As early as 1575, a marriage ordinance was published by the city of Delft which made sexual intercourse before marriage and concubinage punishable: G.A.D., Keurboek Ill, fol. 278-279 (1575).

(38.) G.A.D., Conf.B. 59 (1677).

(39.) In seventeenth-century Holland, it was a common practice for pregnant women to start legal proceedings against the putative father in order to demand alimony: Donald Haks, Huwelijk en gezin in Holland in de 17e en 18e eeuw (Assen, 1982), p.88-104; Midwives even had the obligation to force women in labour to mention the name of the father of the illegitimate child: The Marriage Act of 1656, art. LXXXVIII, De Blecourt & Japikse, Klein Plakkaatboek, pp. 285-6. Both Ingram and Wrightson argued that the authorities' growing concern about poverty as a result of pre-marital sexual relations seemed to be an important reason for identifying the fathers of illegitimate children: Ingram, Church Courts, sex and marriage, pp. 262-3; Keith Wrightson, English Society, 1580-1860 (London, 1993), p. 86; Wrightson & Levine, Poverty and piety in an English Village, Terling 1525-2700 (London, 1979), p. 133. Roodenburg, Onder censuur, pp. 270-1.

(40.) G.A.D., C.B. 49, fol. 209 (1670), Conf.B. 59 (1670): 2 confessions of Chieltje, 3 confessions of her perpetrator, and 2 statements of neighbours.

(41.) Which was considered to be adultery. According to the Politieke Ordonnantie, unmarried men who committed adultery with a married woman were sentenced to a fine of 100 carolusgulden and 14 days on bread and water. If the adultery continued, one could be banished for life: De Blecourt and Japikse, Klein Plakkaatboek, pp. 126-134. Seventeenth-century judges, however, did not always follow these prescribtions precisely.

(42.) It seems that in late 15th-century Bergamo (Italy), a presumption against rape existed if intercourse took place in the house of a third party, provided that the woman entered the house of her own free will: Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society, p. 531-2. Contemporary Dutch moralists, such as Jacob Cats, were of the opinon that married women should avoid being outdoors as much as possible: Haks, Huwelijk en gezin, p. 150-157; Leuker and Roodenburg, "Overspel en schande," pp. 70-1.

(43.) De Blecourt & Japikse, Klein Plakkaatboek, pp. 128-129; Haks, Huwelijk en gezin, pp. 39-46; Mayke de Jong, "Familie, huwelijk en liefde in de late Middeleeuwen, 1000-1500," in: T. Zwaan (ed.), Familie, huwelijk en gezin in West-Europa (Heerlen, 1993), pp. 62-66; A.H. Huussen, "Verboden graden van bloed- en aanverwanten rond 1800," in: Hekma and Roodenburg, Soete minne en helsche boosheit, pp. 210-231.

(44.) Principally, incest was a capital crime, which was considered to be more serious than adultery. In practice, most committers of incest were given severe banishment penalties, usually banishment for life: Maes, Vijf eeuwen stdelijk strafrecht, p. 235.

(45.) Joos de Damhouder, Practycke ende handbouck in crirninele zaeken (heruitgegeven en toegelicht door J. Dauwe en J. Monbally, Roeselare, 1981), p. 162; Van Leeuwen, Rooms-Hollands-Regt, pp. 474-5. See also: Herman Roodenburg, "Een verfoeilijke misdaad. Incest in bet gewest Holland tijdens de 17e en 18e eeuw," in: Holland 25 (1993): 58-76, 60.

(46.) Since both marriage and sexual intercourse between blood relatives or in-laws were prohibited, more cases concerning the crime of incest were handled by the courts of Rotterdam and Delft. Including incest cases which did not involve sexual abuse: In Rotrerdam and Delft 11 and 16 respectively.

(47.) One woman had been abused by her brother-in-law from the age of fourteen, but she had reached the age of 37 at the time the case was handled by the court: G.A.D., C.B. 49, fol. 327-8 (1680), Con.B. 60 (sept. 1680).

(48.) G.A.R., E.B. 140 (1688), E.B. 141 (1659), G.A.D., C.B. 47, fol. 68 (1599), C.B. 47, fol. 287 (1614), C.B. 49, fol. 360-2 (1682), Conf.B. 58 (1658).

(49.) Roodenburg, "Een verfoelijke misdaad," p. 76; Egmond, "Children in Court," p. 80.

(50.) G.A.R., E.B. 140 (1659), G.A.D., C.B. 47(1614).

(51.) Both abortion and attempts to abort a child were punishable by law. In Roman law, a distinction was made between abortion by the women herself and abortion by others. According to Maes, in the course of the 17th-century courts became more reluctant to prosecute abortion and attempts at abortion: Maes, Vijf eeuwen stedelijk strafrecht, pp. 265-7; Vanhemelryck, De criminaliteit in de ammanie van Brussel, pp. 163-5.

(52.) G.A.R., E.B. 140 (1659).

(53.) G.A.D., C.B. 47 (1614). Her uncle was sentenced to whipping, branding, and a banishment of 50 years.

(54.) G.A.R., E.B. 141 (1688).

(55.) Roodenburg, "Ben verfoeilijke misdaad," p. 60-1; De Damhouder, Pracrycke ende handbouck, p. 162; Van Leeuwen, Rooms-Hollands-Regt, pp. 474-5.

(56.) Roodenburg points our that this case did nor in fact concern incest between mother and son, but incest between stepfather and stepdaughter. Therefore, they were not sentenced to death: Roodenburg, "Een verfoeilijke misdaad," p. 60-1; Van Leeuwen, Her Rooms-Hollands-Regt, pp. 474-5.

(57.) Only once was a woman sentenced to death in Delft in 1615 for committing adultery and incest with her son-in-law: "hebbende gecommitteerd mitsdijen crijm van overspel met bloedschande," G.A.D., C.B. 47, fol. 295-6 (1615).

(58.) O.A.D., Conf.B. 58 (1658).

(59.) J.H.P. de Monte Verloren, Hoofdlijnen uir de ontwikkeling der rechrerlijke organisatie in de Noordelijke Nederlanden to de Bataafse omwenteling (Deventer, 1982); P. Gerbenzon en N.E. Algra, Voorrgangh des rechtes (Alphen a/d Rijn, 1983), pp. 128-133; Fockema Andreae, De Nederlandse staat onder de Republiek, pp. 132-145.

(60.) G.A.D., Conf.B. 58 (1658). It was a common practice that lawyers advised magistrates in criminal as well as civil cases, Gerbenzon & Algra, Voortgangh des rechres, pp. 135-154.

(61.) That is, female adulterers were given a 50-year banishment in any case. Male adulters however, were given a fine the first time they committed adultery. If they continued the crime, they were banished for 50 years: De Blecourt & Japikse, Klein Plakkaatboek, pp. 126-134.

(62.) G.A.D., C.B. 47, fol. 360-3 (1682), Conf.B. 60 (1682).

(63.) G.A.D., C.B. 49, fol. 328 (1680), Conf.B. 60 (1680).

(64.) Egmond, "Children in Court," p. 80.

(65.) During the sixteenth century in most European countries, children were not punished before the age of twelve. Children of the age of twelve to sixteen were punished less severely: Maes, Vijf eeuwen stedelijk strafrecht, p. 484-5. Remarkably, this was not the case in incest cases in Rotterdam and Delft. Concerning the age of majority, there was no general agreement in the Dutch Republic. Referring to this, A.H. Huussen has stated: "the growth of a moral consciousness was supposed to be part of a child's development, and criminal liability referred to this consciousness," A.H. Huussen, "Het kind in Friesland tijdens de 18e en l9e eeuwe. Gezinshistorische en strafrechtshistorische aspecten," Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 94 (1981): 391-411. The quote's translation is by Florike Egmond. When determining the age of majority, the Reformed Church advised their consitories to follow the local customs: G.A.R., Classis Schieland, Repertorium Synodi Zuid-Hollandia, inv.nr. 121, fol. 73 (1585).

(66.) Roodenburg, "Een verfoeilijke misdaad," p. 73. During the Middle Ages, it was common practice that screaming and shouting of the victim constituted crucial evidence in proving a woman was raped. Moreover, afrer the rape, women were expected to show their torn clothes and wounds to as many people as possible: Maes, Vijf eeuwen sredelijk strafrecht, p. 226; Vanhemelryck, De criminaliteit in de ammanie van Brussel, pp. 149-50.

(67.) Martin Ingram found that in 17th-century England incest was a grave offence, a felony punishable by death. However, clerical moralists usually devoted little attention to the subject. Furthermore, people did not seem to have spent much time or energy investigating suspected cases of incest: Ingram, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage, pp. 248-249.

(68.) Egmond, "Children in Court," p. 87.

(69.) S.J. Fockema Andreae, Bijdragen tot de Nederlandsche Rechtsgeschiedenis (Haarlem, 1888), p. 60-1; A.S. de Blecourt & H.F.W.D. Fischer, Kort begrip van het oud-vaderlands burgerlijk recht (Groningen, 1950) p. 57.

(70.) Haks, Huwelijk en gezin, p. 151. Similar conclusions are drawn by Judith Hokke in her study about regents' wives in the Dutch Republic: Judith Hokke, "Mijn Alderliefste Jantielief'. Vrouw en gezin in de Republiek: regentenvrouwen en hun relaties," Jaarboek voor Vrouwengeschiedenis 8 (1987): 45-73.

(71.) Groot, Inleidinge, 1,5, p. 20; Haks, Huwelijk en gezin, p. 154.

(72.) Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches. An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (London, 1987), p. 420; Haks, Huwelijk en gezin, p. 155-6.

(73.) See also: Keunen, 'Ongaarne beticht en bevlekt', p. 422.

(74.) G.A.D., C.B. 48, fol. 284 (1649).

(75.) G.A.R., S.B. 248, fol. 121 (1652), 252, fol. 53-56 (1700), E.B. 139 (1652), G.A.D, C.B. 48, fol. 202 (1637).

(76.) For example: G.A.R., S.B. 266, fol. 62 (1668), S.B. 247, fol. 252 (1636), S.B. 251, fol. 160 (1695), E.B. 141 (nov. 1678), E.B. 141 (march 1685), E.B. 142 (april 1694), G.A.D., C.B. 47, fol. 207 (1609), C.B. 48, fol. 202 (1637), C.B. 48, fol. 259-60 (1643).

(77.) G.A.R., E.B. 142 (1694).

(78.) Haks, Huwelijk en gezin, pp. 58-9 and 153.

(79.) It's not clear why Corstiaen was not sentenced for committing adultery and consequently banished for 50 years. According to the sentence notes the venereal disease his wife suffered from, was caused by her husband's infidelity.

(80.) G.A.D., C.B. 47, fol. 75 (1600).

(81.) G.A.D., C.B. 47, fol. 309-10 (1616).

(82.) Roodenburg, "De notaris en de erehandel. Beledigingen voor het Amsterdamse notariaat, 1700-1710," in: Keunen & Roodenburg, Schimpen en schelden, p. 380.

(83.) Kept woman or concubine, in Dutch bijzit, could also stand for a concubine of a married man, but in the criminal records the words were usually used in the sense of an unmarried woman who lived with an unmarried man.

(84.) Concubinage was prohibited in by the Marriage Act: De Blecourt & Japikse, Klein plakkaatboek, pp. 283-4 (art. LXXII).

(85.) G.A.D., C.B. 48, fol. 165 (1633).

(86.) See for mistresses: G.A.R., Cor.B. 266, fol. 19 (1651), S.B. 246, fol. 554 (1627), G.A.D., C.B. 47, fol. 309-10 (1616), C.B. 48, fol. 165 (1633), C.B. 48, fol. 251-2 (1642), Conf.B. 59 (april 1677). See for fiancee: G.A.D., C.B. 48, fol. 333 (1620).

(87.) G.A.D., Conf.B. 59 (april 1676).

(88.) Similar conclusions are drawn by Martin Dinges in his study about honour in eighteenth-century Paris: Martin Dinges, Der Maurermeister und der Finanzrichter. Ehre, Geld und soziale Kontrolle im Paris des 18. Jahrhunderts (Gottingen, 1994), pp. 140-198.

(89.) G.A.D, C.B. 46, fol. 35-6 (1562).

(90.) See, for example: G.A.R., S.B. 245, fol. 293 (1616), S.B. 245, fol. 364 (1618). Roodenburg found that in Amsterdam people could also be expelled from their neighbourhood on account of their dishonourable behaviour: Roodenburg, "De notaris en de erehandel," p. 369.

(91.) Although settlement practices of criminal cases had been forbidden by the Criminele Ordonnantien of Philip II in 1570, in practice, settlements remained in existence. In 1662, for instance, a wife bought the public prosecuter off in order to release her husband from being convicted for adultery: G.A.D., Censuurboekje, N.H. kerkeraad van Delft, inv.nr. 276, f. 110-11 (1662).

(92.) According to Egmond, the public behaviour of spouses seemed to be of vital importance in preserving one's honourable reputation. Morover, men as well as women were more concerned about their honour and reputation, and less interested in morality: Egmond, "Erezaken," pp. 18-19.

(93.) The wedding festivities were probably to celebrate their own wedding anniversary. However, how many years they were married remains unclear.

(94.) G.A.D., Conf.B. (januari 1666).