Seventeenth-Century Attitudes Toward Deviant Sex

Seventeenth-Century Attitudes toward Deviant Sex
Author(s): Caroline Bingham

Source: The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Spring, 1971), pp. 447-468
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/202621
Accessed: 23-05-2017 13:22 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of
Interdisciplinary History
This content downloaded from 140.77.168.36 on Tue, 23 May 2017 13:22:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Caroline Bingham
Seventeenth-Century Attitudes
Toward Deviant Sex A crime is an act punishable by law;
a sin is a transgression against divine law or principles of morality. A
Christian of the late twentieth century would understand "Thou shalt
not kill" as a command to abstain from the crime of murder, and "Thou
shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind" as a command to
abstain from the sin of homosexuality. To a non-Christian the distinc-
tion between the two commands would be different. The first he
would understand as a command to abstain from a crime equally for-
bidden to Christians and non-Christians, the second as a scriptural
sanction upon a form of deviant sex of which he might or might not
disapprove for a variety of non-religious reasons. In other words, he
might not consider it a sin.
A seventeenth-century man would have found both of these
attitudes unacceptable, and the non-Christian attitude incomprehen-
sible. He would have read, in a spirit of acceptance, the biblical condem-
nations of all forms of sexual irregularity and deviation. The book of
Genesis, chapters I8-I9, provided the most striking example in the
cautionary tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, with its awesome culmina-
tion of divine punishment. More specifically, Leviticus in chapters I8
and 20 contained detailed condemnations of irregular and deviant sex,
with appropriate punishments for each "crime." Every variety of
incest was separately detailed with its recommended punishment. As
for the then prevalent forms of deviant sex, bestiality was condemned
as "confusion" (i.e., confusion of the natural order), and homosexuality
as "abomination"-"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall
surely be put to death."'
St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, assumed the Hebraic attitude
of condemnation, and castigated the "vile affections" of the pagan
world, lesbianism and male homosexuality. ". .. Even their women did
change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise
also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust
one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly...
Caroline Bingham of London is the author of The Making of a King: The Early Years
of James VI and I (London, I968).
I Lev. 20:I3. (All biblical quotations are from the Authorized Version.)
448 | CAROLINE BINGHAM
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God
gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
convenient."'2
"The Christian Church," according to a recent writer on the sub-
ject ofhomosexuality, "adopted the ancientJewish codes and formalized
them into the ecclesiastical laws that governed medieval Europe and
later provided the basis for English Common Law. In medieval times,
when clerical preoccupation with sins of the flesh was at its height and
sexual pleasure of any kind was considered almost damnable, many men
and also a few women were sent to their deaths for homosexual
offences."3 In post-Reformation England, the law followed the Hebraic
and medieval practice in imposing the death penalty for acts of sodomy.
At the trial of the Earl of Castlehaven in 1631, of which an account
follows, the Attorney General gave a resume of the English legal attitude,
quoted in the ensuing narrative.
In April I63I, Mervyn, second Earl of Castlehaven, was found
guilty of offences which, in the opinion of the assize of peers impaneled
for his trial, were "so heinous and so horrible that a Christian man
ought scarce to name them"; and, having been found guilty, he "des-
sired their Lordships' pardons in that he had been so great a stain to
honour and nobility." He had been found guilty of "abetting a rape
upon his Countess" and "committing sodomy with his servants,"4
and sentenced to death for the latter offense. The opinion of his peers as
to the heinousness of his offenses, and the words with which Lord
Castlehaven desired their pardons, epitomize the seventeenth-century
attitude toward deviant sex: In the opinion of the prosecution there was
nothing to extenuate such an iniquity as sodomy, and, as far as the
defendant was concerned, once he had been found guilty there was no
excuse to be offered. An account of Lord Castlehaven and of his trial
and execution illustrates in detail the strongly prejudiced attitude of the
seventeenth century, and exemplifies it with particular force since it
shows that membership of the most privileged class of society provided
no protection in the case of an accusation of this nature.
Mervyn Touchet, whose names combined the surnames of his
parents, was the only son of George Touchet, eighth Lord Audley, and
2 Rom. 1I:26-28.
3 D. J. West, Homosexuality (London, I955), 64.
4 Anon., The Tryal and Condemnation of Mervin Lord Audley, Earl of Castle-Have
Westminster, April the 5th 1631. For abetting a rape upon his Countess, committing sodomy
his servants, and commanding and countenancing the Debauching his Daughter (London, 1
title page.
ATTITUDES TOWARD DEVIANT SEX 449
first Earl of Castlehaven in the peerage of Ireland, and of his

Mervyn, daughter of Sir James Mervyn, of Fonthill, in Wilts
of their five children exhibited psychological or sexual abnor
later life, but a total lack of information concerning the
menage and the upbringing of the children makes it impossibl
any suggestion as to the causes of these abnormalities (excep
regard to Mervyn, that he was the only son in a household nu
dominated by females). The psychologically disturbed daught
Eleanor, who suffered from a form of religious mania, which
her considerable notoriety even in a century when public di
religious eccentricity were commonplace. She was the sel
prophetess, Lady Eleanor Davis (nJe Touchet), who believed h
be a reincarnation of the prophet Daniel; and there was, in th
of Sir John Lambe, Dean of the Court of Arches, "Never
ladie" (by which he intended, but incorrectly composed, an a
of her name). It was unfortunate for Mervyn Touchet that w
contemporaries regarded his sister as a madwoman, more dese
ridicule than condemnation, they believed him to be sane eno
therefore wholly responsible for his actions and, by the sam
culpably wicked and depraved.
In 1608 Mervyn Touchet was knighted by James I, and in
the age of twenty-three, he succeeded to his father's titles an
Shortly afterward he married Elizabeth Barnham, the dau
Benedict Barnham, a London alderman. Barnham's other d
Alice, was married to Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, the grea
essayist, and Lord Chancellor. This was an unhappy marri
according to John Aubrey, "He [Bacon] was TraL8Epac'rrs' [a p
His Ganimeds and Favourites took Bribes... ."5 But his sexual devia-
tion was merely a matter of gossip; it was the accusation of venality
which brought about his downfall. "His dowager married her Gentle-
man-usher Sir Thomas (I thinke) Underhill, whom she made deaf and
blinde with too much of Venus."6 (Aubrey, it must be observed, was
rare among his contemporaries in viewing sexual abnormalities or
excesses with tolerance and amusement.) The marriage of Alice's sister
Elizabeth was apparently less remarkable, for she bore the young Earl
of Castlehaven six children in rapid succession, and then left him a
widower. It was possibly after the death of his first wife that he was
introduced to homosexual practices; for, while his first marriage
5 John Aubrey (ed. Oliver Lawson Dick), Aubrey's BriefLives (London, 1949), I2o.
6 Ibid.
appears to have been normal and not unsuccessful, his second marriage
was disastrous, and his second wife found him established in the habits
which ultimately brought him to disaster.
In 1624 Lord Castlehaven made his second and more exalted
marriage, to Anne Stanley, daughter of Ferdinando, fifth Earl of Derby,
and widow of Grey Brydges, Lord Chandos. She was a woman several
years older than himself, and, in the opinion of one of his servants, who
at the time of speaking admittedly had cause to hate her, she was "the
wickedest woman in the world, and had more to answer for than any
woman that lived."7 Lord Castlehaven himself described her as "wholly
delighting in lust, which I am neither able nor willing to satisfy."8 His
subsequent treatment of her is perhaps psychologically explicable as the
consequence of a violent revulsion against her, upon the discovery of her
excessive sexual appetite and his admitted inability to satisfy it.
As it was later revealed at his trial, one night shortly after their
marriage, he ordered one of his servants, a man named Giles Broadway,
to get into bed with them. According to Broadway, Lord Castlehaven
"caught hold of me, and bid me come to bed, which I at first denied, but
at last consented, and went into bed on the Lord's side, but he turned me
upon my Lady."9 At Castlehaven's instigation, Broadway raped her,
while he himself held her down. Lucretia-like, "as soon as she was free"
Lady Castlehaven seized a knife and attempted to kill herself, but Broad-
way snatched the knife from her and broke it.IO Lady Castlehaven told
this story at her husband's trial, at which she was playing the part of a
wronged and virtuous wife. But if her story of attempted suicide were
true, it must have been motivated by horror of the experience and by
7 Anon., The Case of Sodomy in the Tryal of Mervin Lord Audley, Earl of Castlehaven ...
printedfrom an original manuscript (London, 1708), 37.
8 Ibid., 36.
9 The Tryal and Condemnation, 17.
Io British Museum, Harleian Mss. 2194ff. 26-30, Lords High Stewards of England: The
Arraignment and Tryall of Mervin Lord Audley Earl of Castlehaven in Ireland, by his Honoble
Peeres att the Kings bench Barre in Westminster Hall on Munday Aprill the 25th 1631; Harleian
Mss. 738f. 25, The Arraignment of Mervin Lord Audley Earle of Castlehaven at Westm Hall
ye 25 of Aprill 1631 for causing his wife to be ravished and comiting of sodomy as it was tried
before Thomas Lord Coventry Lord Keeper of the great seal of England and Lord High Steward
for that day, accompanied with the Judges also 26 of the nobility; Harleian Mss. 6865 f. 17, The
Arraignment of Mervin Lord Audley Earl of Castlehaven at Westminster Hall upon monday the
25th day of Aprill 1631, for Ravishing of his wife and committings of sodomy in the body of one
Fitz-Patrick at Salisbury andjffonthill, by vertue of a Commission of Oyer and Terminer (... .ed.)
to Sir Thomas Coventry Lord Keeper of ye Great Seale of England, ye Lord High Stewardfor
ye day, the Judges, and twenty-five of ye Nobility (this account does not mention the breaking
of the knife); The Case of Sodomy, I7.
ATTITUDES TOWARD DEVIANT SEX 45I
loathing of Broadway rather than by a sense of outraged

Subsequently she took a number of lovers, including a ma
Amptill, an erstwhile page of Lord Castlehaven, and Henry S
"the special favourite of the Lord."II Both of them were Cas
catamites, as also were Broadway himself and another of his s
young Irishman named Laurence Fitzpatrick.
After the episode of the rape, Lord Castlehaven and h
continued to coexist in mutual detestation, and they maintaine
hold in which extreme promiscuity was practiced by all. At o
Lord Castlehaven's servants, besides sharing the favors of his
also shared with him a young woman called Blandina, who "l
Earl's house halfa year and was a common whore."I2 Accordin
testimony of Fitzpatrick, "His house was a common brothel-h
the Earl himself took delight not only in being an actor, but a
while other men did it. Blandina was once abused by himself
vants, for the space of seven hours together, until she got th
pox."I3 This is somewhat more sensational than Castlehaven's o
ment that Blandina had stayed in his house only fourteen days
she "bestowed an ill disease there, and therefore he sent her
Toward the end of the I62os a marriage was arranged
Elizabeth Brydges, the daughter of Lady Castlehaven by
husband, and James Touchet, the eldest son of Lord Castlehav
first wife. At the time of the marriage both children were not m
twelve years old. The scheme was presumably initiated by Lad
haven for the benefit of her daughter. Theoretically it was re
advantageous, and Lady Castlehaven, though she can have
ii Harleian Mss. 2I94ff. 26-30 gives details of Amptill (or Antill). He "had
when he came to the Lord Audley but the mare he rode on," according to the
of one Walter Bigges. "My Lord let him keep horses in his Lordship's ground
I think he enriched himself 20001 [l]: but he never sat at table with him un
married his daughter, and then he gave him to the value of 70001." G. E.
(ed.), The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and
Kingdom, III, 86-87 gives no record of a marriage between Amptill and one
haven's daughters; but Castlehaven referred to it in his own first examination,
in Harleian Mss. 29I4ff. 26-30, and admitted to making the gift of J7000. Ha
6865f. 17 and Harleian Mss. 738f. 25 give the same information and financia
See also Anon., The Arraignment and Conviction of Mervin Lord Audley, Ear
haven .. . at Westminster on Monday April, 25 1631. As also the beheading of th
shortly after on Tower Hill (London, 1642), 8; The Case of Sodomy, 36, "Mr. Ski
Amptill lay with her commonly."
12 Ibid., 9.
13 The Tryal and Condemnation, I8-I9.
14 Harleian Mss. 2I94ff. 26-30; Anon., The Arraignment and Conviction, 7.
452 CAROLINE BINGHAM
illusions concerning her husband's character, could scarcely have

the results.
The marriage took place in Ireland, and was performed
Romish priest in the morning, and at night by a prebend of Kilken
Soon afterward, Lord Castlehaven told Elizabeth "that upon h
ledge her husband loved her not," and urged her to take as her
favorite, Henry Skipwith. Castlehaven's treatment of his daugh
law can only be understood in the context of his attachment to Ski
which had a paternal as well as a sexual element. Skipwith had c
him from Ireland, where "his father and mother were very me
but having become the principal object of Castlehaven's affect
was treated with great generosity, and highly privileged. S
himself stated that the Earl gave him "his house at Salisbury and a
of kI60 per annum";I6 and one of his fellow servants declared
"spent /500 per annum of the Lord's means."'7 Skipwith's fello
well aware that he was "the special favorite of the Lord, and
usually lay with him."I8 They also knew that Castlehaven h
ceived the desire that his daughter-in-law should have a child b
by Skipwith instead of by his own son, so that Skipwith's pos
should inherit his titles and estates.I9 Castlehaven resolved to make
Elizabeth accept Skipwith, either by persuasion or by threats. At first he
"often persuaded her to love him," and, when he could not dispose her
to do so, threatened that "he would turn her out of doors if she did not
lie with Skipwith; and that if she did not, he would tell her husband
she did."20 The unfortunate Elizabeth resisted as long as she could, and
submitted only unwillingly since she was helpless to do otherwise.
At her father-in-law's trial Elizabeth described how, in his presence,
she had submitted to Skipwith, and how, upon Castlehaven's recom-
mendation, "He [Skipwith] used oil to enter my body first, for I was
then but twelve years of age."21 She also stated that Lord Castlehaven
I5 Harleian Mss. 6865f. 17; The Arraignment and Conviction, 9: The Tryal and Condemna-
tion, I6.
I6 Harleian Mss. 2194ff. 26-30; The Tryal and Condemnation, I8. In this version, by
Skipwith's testimony, he was given a manor of C26o p.a.; The Case of Sodomy, 15. In this
version Skipwith testified that he had been given a manor of 600o p.a.
17 The Arraignment and Conviction, 8.
I8 Harleian Mss. 738f. 25; Harleian Mss. 6865f. I7; The Arraignment and Conviction, 9.
I9 Ibid., 8, 9; The Tryal and Condemnation, 17, I8; The Case of Sodomy, 24.
20 Harleian Mss. 2I94ff. 26-30; Harleian Mss. 6865f. I7; The Arraignment and Convic-
tion, 9; The Case of Sodomy, I6.
2I The Tryal and Condemnation, I6. Harleian Mss. 738f. 25 gives the same information
without quoting Elizabeth's own words.
ATTITUDES TOWARD DEVIANT SEX | 453
"saw Skipwith and I lie together several times, and so did many servants
of the house besides."22 Elizabeth did not conceive a child by Skipwith,
but Lord Castlehaven, determined that she should do so, ensured her
continued submission by the expedient of keeping her short of money,
and only providing her with "means" as the price of her continued
liaison with Skipwith.
The Countess of Castlehaven had evidently decided to endure life
with her husband, perhaps for the sake of securing the advantageous
marriage of her daughter. She endured it for something more than five
years, and it was in all probability the events which followed her
daughter's marriage that brought her endurance to an end. The resolu-
tion grew upon her to be revenged for both Elizabeth's ill-usage and
her own, and at the same time to destroy Lord Castlehaven himself. The
means to accomplish his destruction were at hand, for Lord Castle-
haven's pleasure in being a spectator of the sexual act, and of causing
others to be spectators, applied equally to heterosexual and homosexual
acts; and since homosexual acts were punishable by death, his destruc-
tion could be compassed easily enough if his servants were willing to
testify against him. Lady Castlehaven evidently found it possible to
suborn some of them and to terrorize others. It is possible that she had
an ally in the young James Touchet, who later protested that he had had
no hand in bringing his father to justice, as Castlehaven certainly
believed him to have done.23 In fact, considering his extreme youth, he
is more likely to have been a passive rather than an active ally of his
mother-in-law.
Lady Castlehaven took action in the autumn of I630, and at her
instigation her husband was "taken up in Wiltshire" and imprisoned at
Salisbury, where three indictments were found against him, one for
"a rape upon his own wife" and two for sodomy with Giles Broadway
and Laurence Fitzpatrick. He was taken to the Tower of London, and
there remained to await his trial.
The trial was something of a cause celebre. An anonymous contem-
porary observer wrote "On Monday the Sheriffs of London began to
build scaffolds in Westminster Hall, against Monday next, for trial of
the Earl of Castlehaven, there being twenty-seven Lords summoned by
writt to be his judges ... His sentence (as I am told by an active Justice
of the Peace) is like to undergo some difficult questions of law; who
22 The Tryal and Condemnation, I6.

23 The Case of Sodomy, 21.
tells me also that my Lord of D. swore unto him they should never
obtain his voice to condemn him, though he be one of those twenty
seven peers."24 On April 13, 1631, Lord Castlehaven was brought to
trial before an assize of his peers.25 The twenty-seven members of th
assize included the Lord Treasurer Weston; Philip Herbert, Earl o
Pembroke and Montgommery, who had been a favorite of the lat
King James I; Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick; Edward Sackville, Earl
of Dorset; Thomas, Viscount Wentworth, later Earl of Strafford, an
the most distinguished minister of King Charles I; and Robert Dever
eux, Earl of Essex, thefaineant Parliamentarian commander in the Civ
Wars.26 The Lord Steward of the assize was Sir Thomas Coventry
Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England; and present to advise o
points of law were Sir Nicholas Hyde, Lord ChiefJustice of the King's
Bench, and Sir Thomas Richardson, Lord Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, with five other judges.27
The prisoner was brought to the bar escorted by the Lieutenant o
the Tower, and "had a place in manner of a pew, lined with green, in
which he stood."28 The Lord Steward cautioned the members of the
assize in balanced and judicious language: "Because the crimes that come
this day before us may in some breed detestation, and the person of his
24 Harleian Mss. 7043f 31, T. Baker, Collectanea Ecclesiastica etc., A letter signed;
"J. B." (This folio contains a transcript of a letter signed "J. B.," giving a brief account of
Lord Castlehaven's trial and last days.) The sympathizer of Castlehaven's designated as
"My Lord of D" was either Lord Dorchester or the Earl of Danby. It is unlikely to have
been Lord Dorset, for reasons which are apparent later in the narrative.
25 This date has also been given as 5 April and 25 April, but since he was executed on
14 May, having been given one month for repentance, 13 April would appear to be the
correct date for the trial.
26 The complete assize consisted of: I. Lord Treasurer Weston; 2. The Earl of Manches-
ter, Lord Privy Seal; 3. The Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Earl Marshal of England; 4. The
Earl of Pembroke and Montgommery, Lord Chamberlain; 5. The Earl of Kent; 6. The
Earl of Worcester; 7. The Earl of Bedford; 8. The Earl of Essex; 9. The Earl of Dorset;
Io. The Earl of Salisbury; II. The Earl of Leicester; 12. The Earl of Warwick; r3. The
Earl of Carlisle; I4. The Earl of Holland; I5. The Earl of Berkshire; I6. The Earl of
Danby; 17. Viscount Dorchester; I8. Viscount Conway; I9. Viscount Wentworth;
20. Viscount Wimbledon; 21. Lord Percy; 22. Lord Strange; 23. Lord Clifford; 24. Lord
Peters; 25. Lord North; 26. Lord Goring. Sir Thomas Coventry, the Lord Steward,
made up the twenty-seventh. Harleian Mss. 6865f. 17 omits the Earl of Berkshire and
includes Lord Howard.
27 The five otherjudges were: Sir Humphrey Davenport, Lord Chief Baron of the
Exchequer; SirJohn Denham; Sir WilliamJones; Sir Richard Hutton; SirJames White-
locke. They "sat below [i.e., below the peers] on each side of the table." Harleian Mss.
6865f. 17.
ATTITUDES TOWARD DEVIANT SEX 455
Lordship may in others breed compassion, I desire your Lordsh

these two aside, and let your reason sway your judgement."29
The Attorney General, Sir Robert Heath, prosecuted. His
expressed very clearly the extravagant horror with which Lo
haven's contemporaries viewed the crimes of which he was a
also illustrated some of the causes of that horror:
The prisoner is honourable, the crimes dishonourable of w

is indicted.... I dare be bold to say, never poet invented nor hi
grapher writ of any so foul, though Suetonius has curiously set
vices of some of the Emperors... yet none of them came n
Lord's crime; this [i.e., the rape of his own wife] is a crime of t
that we seldom know of the like, and the other [i.e., sodomy]
scarce hear of it, but they are of that pestiferous and pestilent
that if they be not punished they will draw from heaven hea
ments upon this kingdom.30
It is obvious that the basis of this horror was religious, and at

by the fear of divine punishment. The Attorney General we
explain the attitude of the King, Charles I:
His Majesty... would have my Lord Audley,... the priso
the bar, heard with as much favour as a crime of that horrid nature w
When the notice of this crime came first to his Majesty's know
was amazed, and gave strick [i.e., strict] command that the trut
appear, and his throne and people might be cleared from the
such abominable impieties.3I
Lord Castlehaven, at this stage merely under accusation,

yet found guilty, was clearly facing prejudice strong enough
the justice with which he would be tried (as is implied by t
italicized in the passage quoted above).
The Attorney General went on to explain to the assize of
legal position regarding the crimes of which Castlehaven wa
29 Harleian Mss. 2194ff. 26-30; Harleian Mss. 6865f. I7; The Case of S
(The Arraignment and Conviction, 3, and The Tryal and Condemnation, 4, give
which the wording differs slightly, but the sense remains the same.)
30 Harleian Mss. 2I94fF. 26-30; Harleian Mss. 6865f. 17. The Case of Sodo
The Arraignment and Conviction, 4, omit the words "pestiferous and."
31 The Earl of Castlehaven was referred to by his English title of Lord Aud
out the trial since he was being tried under English law. The Tryal and Co
9-Io. Harleian Mss. 2194ff. 26-30 gives [the King] "Would have my Lord
prisoner at the bar, heard with as much favour as a crime of this nature ca
"that his throne and people might be cleared from so heavy and haynous si
Mss. 6865f. I7 gives "from so grievous sins." Harleian Mss. 738f. 27 gives "
grievous crimes."
Rape, he told them, was a felony, and "when any offence is felony" not
only the principal but "also they that are present, abetting and aiding the
misdoer, are principals also."3z Of sodomy, which he considered so rare
a crime, the Attorney General had much more to say. He first explained
the legal aspect:
As for the crimen sodomiticum... it is of so abominable and vile a
nature (that as the indictment truly expresses it, crimen inter Christianos
non nominandum), it is a crime not to be named among Christians; and
by the Law of God, as well as the ancient laws of England, it was pun-
ished with death. Levit. 20. Fleta. 1.6. Cap. 35. Sodomitae in terra vivi
confodiantur: sodomites are to be buried alive in the earth.... The
statute of 25. Henry 8. Cap. 6. made it felony without clergy, which
though repealed by i. Mar., yet it was revived by the 5. El. Cap. 17.,
and is still in force.33
He then went on to warn the peers against accepting the plea of

technical innocence, which, he knew from the evidence taken at Salis-
bury, Lord Castlehaven would advance:
As to this indictment there is no other question, but whether it be
crimen sodomiticum penetratione, whether he penetrated the body, or not;
to which I answer, the fifth of Elizabeth sets it down in general terms, and
ubi lex non distinguit, ibi non distinguendum [i.e., where the law does not
distinguish, there must no distinction be made]; and I know you will be
cautious how you give the least mitigation to such abominable sins;
for when once a man indulges his lust, and prevaricates with his religion,
as my Lord Audley has done, by being a Protestant in the morning and
a Papist in the afternoon, no wonder if he commits the most abominable
impieties; for when men forsake their God, 'tis no wonder he leaves
them to themselves.34
The charge of prevaricating with his religion obviously weighed

heavily against Castlehaven, for though the Attorney General's reason-
ing seems illogical to the twentieth-century mind, to the religious and
32 The Tryal and Condemnation, I.
33 Ibid., II-I2.
34 Ibid. In Harleian Mss. 2I94ff. 26-30, the passage quoted is given as follows: "The
Laws of 15th Eliz. sets it down in general words, and where the law doth not distinguish
neither must we. And I know, my Lords the peers, you will be curious how you give the
least commiseration or mitigation to so horrible and abhominable [sic] sins which brought
such plagues after them as we may see: 17 Genesis, I8 Levit., 19 Romans, etc. [in fact,
Judges I9 and Romans i]." Harleian Mss. 6865f. 17 omits "commiseration"; Harleian
Mss. 73 8f. 25 gives the beginning of this passage in the same words as the other Harleian
Mss. sources referred to, but the latter part is given in shortened form and the hand-
writing deteriorates.
ATTITUDES TOWARD DEVIANT SEX [ 457
polemically conscious seventeenth-century man the logic of his

reasoning appeared self-evident. "When once a man prevaricates with
his religion... no wonder if he commits the most abominable impi-
eties"-this was not a flight of oratory, but a hackneyed truism.35
After the Attorney General's speech, the assize heard the evidence
of Lady Castlehaven and her daughter, and of several of Lord Castle-
haven's servants, including Skipwith, Broadway, and Fitzpatrick. The
last two, as a result of the indictments against Lord Castlehaven, had
faced the prospect of having to stand trial themselves; but they had
been persuaded to give evidence by Lord Dorset, who promised them
immunity from prosecution if they would testify against their master.
Fitzpatrick's testimony was probably the most damning; it was certainly
the most detailed:
"Henry Skipwith," he declared "was the great favorite of my Lord
Audley, he usually lay in bed with him, and the Lord would make him
lie with his own Lady, and with the young Lady his daughter [i.e.,
daughter-in-law], and these things I saw several times, it being done in
my Lord's sight also. My Lord made me lie with him at Fount Hill
[i.e., Fonthill] and Salisbury, and once spent his seed, but did not pene-
trate my body, and I understood he had often done the like with
others."36 Broadway's testimony concerning his relations with Lord
Castlehaven corroborated Fitzpatrick's: "The Lord Audley used my
body as a woman, but never pierced it, only spent his seed betwixt my
thighs."37 Skipwith merely admitted "For the most part I lay in bed
with the Earl... I lay with the young Lady very commonly... My
Lord said he had rather have a boy of my getting than of any other."38
Lady Castlehaven described the rape committed by Broadway, as
previously narrated, and Broadway admitted to it. "The young Lady,"
Elizabeth, described how Lord Castlehaven had forced her to submit to
Skipwith.
Lord Castlehaven had pleaded not guilty, and he continued to
protest his innocence in the face of the evidence of his wife, daughter-
in-law, and servants. At last it became obvious to him that his protesta-
35 One of Lord Castlehaven's servants accounted for his "prevarication" as follows:

"At first everybody knows he was a Protestant; but after the buying of Founthill House
[i.e., Fonthill], he turned to the Romish religion, at the instance of some Popish gentle-
men who were neighbours." The Tryal and Condemnation, I8.
36 Harleian Mss. 6865f. I7; Harleian Mss. 738f. 25; The Tryal and Condemnation, I8.
37 Harleian Mss. 2I94ff. 26-30 (in a reported speech); Harleian Mss. 738f. 25; The Tryal
and Condemnation, 17.
38 Harleian Mss. 6865f. I7; Harleian Mss. 738f. 25; The Tryal and Condemnation, Io.
458 j CAROLINE BINGHAM
tions could carry little weight in the face of the damning proofs pro-
vided by their testimonies, which corroborated one another all too
well. When cross-examined himself he declined to answer the questions
put to him, and said "that condemnation should not come out of his
own mouth."39 Then, when the Lord Steward told him that he might
speak in his own defense, he first declared that he was the victim of a
conspiracy.
"The Lord Audley spake for himself that his wife was naught and
that she had had a child before which he concealed to save her honour,
and that his son now being but fourteen years of age and himself old
[he was thirty-eight], that the one would have lands and the other a
young husband and therefore they plotted his death."40 This plea was
rejected, on the ground that Castlehaven was merely making a state-
ment unsupported by proofs. Accordingly, he fell back upon his last
defense, which was resolute and ingenious, and was based on a series of
legal objections.
Lord Castlehaven first objected against his wife as a witness on the
grounds of her moral character. The Lord Steward appealed to the
Lord Chief Justice, Sir Nicholas Hyde, for his opinion; and the Lord
Chief Justice replied "If the woman on whom the crime is committed
be a whore, yet it may be a ravishment."4I (In other words, the moral
character of the witness was irrelevant.) Castlehaven replied by object-
ing that his wife should be allowed to witness against him at all. The Lord
ChiefJustice answered "In Civil Causes a wife can't be a witness against
her husband, but in Criminal Causes she may."42 Castlehaven then
objected against his servants being allowed as witnesses; first, because
39 Harleian Mss. 738f. 25; Harleian Mss. 686sf. 17; The Arraignment and Conviction, Io.
40 Harleian Mss. 738f. 25. The only person who believed the story of the conspiracy
was Lord Castlehaven's sister, Lady Eleanor Davis. She wrote a curious pamphlet en-
titled, "The Word of God to the Citie of London from the Lady Eleanor: of the Earl of
Castlehaven condemn'd .. I63I" (London, 1644), in which she cited numerous far-
fetched scriptural parallels to his life and death. Much of the pamphlet is written in
tangled, ungrammatical language, but the central idea is expressed clearly enough:
". .. the Earl of Castlehaven was accused by his wife (such a wicked woman). He was as
innocent as the child new born." (7) She also wrote: "And there shall but name them,
the contrivers of it. Ann his wife, and his [sic; in fact, her] brother Ferdinando: the one
for envy, she being an heire [i.e., whore], and such a notorious one, (0 Ann). The other
a perverted papist wanting no malice: wherefore to cut him off, some time gone that way
astray too, but recalled himself, no aspersion was held too foul for him .. ." (This short
pamphlet has faulty pagination.)
41 The Tryal and Condemnation, 23. (Harleian Mss. 2194ff. 26-30 reports the Lord Chief
Justice's decisions without direct speech.)
42 The Tryal and Condemnation, 23; Harleian Mss. 2194ff. 26-30.
they were of "mean and base extraction"; second, because "witnesses

according to law should be honest men, and of untainted reputation,
which these are not"; and, third, because Fitzpatrick was a recusant. The
Lord ChiefJustice demolished these objections one by one. To the first
he replied that persons of mean extraction could witness against a peer
"or against any man"; in reply to the second he explained that the repu-
tation of a witness could not be taken into consideration "for otherwise,
facts of this nature would seldom or never be discovered, and till he is
attainted he is bonus et legalis homo, a competent evidence"; to the third
objection he replied that though Fitzpatrick might be a recusant he had
not been convicted of recusancy, and was therefore "a competent
evidence."43 Castlehaven finally produced the objection against which
the Attorney General had warned the assize:
"My Lord," he said "I desire to know whether the statute intends
that all kind of pollution, man with man, is buggery or not, seeing the
witnesses say there was no penetration?"
To this, however, the Lord ChiefJustice replied "It is buggery by
the law; for the law of this land makes no distinction of buggery, if
there is emissio semenis."44
Lord Castlehaven was obliged to admit "that he had nothing more
to say, but left himself to God and his peers." The twenty-seven Lords
retired, and reached their decision after two hours' debate, and several
consultations with the Lord Chief Justice. On the first indictment,
concerning the rape of the Countess, they were unanimous in finding
him guilty; on the two indictments for sodomy, fifteen of the Lords
declared him guilty and twelve not guilty.
The Attorney General, in summing up for the prosecution, had
quoted Leviticus: "By these abominations the land is defiled; and there-
fore the Lord doth visit this land for the iniquity thereof"; and he
concluded "that God may remove and take away from us His plagues,
let this wicked man be taken away from amongst us."45 It was in the
light of this attitude that the majority of the peers reached their decision.
Lord Castlehaven's objection to the legal definition of sodomy doubt-
less accounted for the minority dissent. For though the Attorney General
had assured the assize that the Elizabethan statute "sets it down in
general terms, and ubi lex non distinguit, ibi non distinguendunm," the
43 The Tryal and Condemnation, 23, 24; Harleian Mss. 2I94ff. 26-30.
44 The Tryal and Condemnation, 24; Harleian Mss. 2I94ff. 26-30 gives "The Judges
resolved that the use of the body so far as to spend seed thereupon maketh it so."
45 The Case of Sodomy, i8. The Attorney General quoted Lev. I8:25.
460 CAROLINE BINGHAM
distinction in reality between sodomy and what Castlehaven c

describe as "all kind of pollution, man with man," made it pos
regard him as technically innocent. Nevertheless, a scrupulous or
fully inclined minority was insufficient to alter the outcome of the
On the decision of the majority he was sentenced to death.46
Lord Castlehaven, having heard the sentence, "descended to
petition to the Lords, and very humbly besought them to intercede
his Majesty that he might not die, but be banished, or at least
Majesty might not suddenly cut him off, but give him time of
ence. And then he desired their Lordships' pardons, in that he h
so great a stain to honour and nobility."47 He was assured that
cession would be made on his behalf to the King.
The intercession was not made to very receptive ears. The
himself a model of conjugal fidelity, was deeply disgusted by
immorality of any sort. "King Charles was temperate, chas
serious," wrote a contemporary memoirist, "so that the fo
bawds, mimics and catamites, of the former court, grew out of
and the nobility and courtiers, who did not quite abandon
debaucheries, yet so reverenced the King as to retire into corn
practice them."48 The last part of the sentence precisely describ
life led by Lord Castlehaven at Fonthill and Salisbury. Did his u
responsibility for the fate of Lord Castlehaven cause any conflic
conscience of King Charles I? When informed of the accusations
Castlehaven, we know that he was "amazed," and felt that if C
haven were guilty, "his throne and people" were stained wi
guilt of such abominable impieties."49 Besides holding this reli
orthodox view, King Charles would have been influenced b
words written by his father on the subject in "Basilikon Do
46 The sentence was pronounced by the Lord Steward, and included the fo
words: "My heart grieveth what my tongue must utter, but justice is the way
wickedness. O think upon your offences, which a Christian man ought scarce
and which the depraved nature of man, which carries us to all vice, yet hates
natural sin.... And though you die not for it, yet you have abused your daugh
having honour and fortune to leave behind, you would have had the spurious
varlet to inherit both." The Arraignment and Conviction, I I. This last sentence is e
forcefully rendered as "you would have the impious and spurious offspring of a h
inherit" in The Case of Sodomy, 24.
47 The Case of Sodomy, 24. Harleian Mss. 2194ff. 26-30 gives "a base and low p
48 Lucy Hutchinson (ed. Julius Hutchinson), Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson (
I908), 67. The memoirist, a parliamentarian, is scrupulously giving King Charle
for maintaining a high moral tone at Court, in contrast with his father, King
49 Harleian Mss. 2I94ff. 26-30; Harleian Mss. 6865f. 17; Harleian Mss 738f.
Tryal and Condemnation, 9-Io. (In regard to varying words, see above, note 30.
manual of the theory and practice of kingship, for which Charles I had
the most profound respect. According to James I there were "some
horrible crimes that ye are bound in conscience never to forgive: such
as witchcraft, wilful murder, sodomy...."50
In spite of his unequivocal condemnation of sodomy, it must be
observed that James I's relations with his own favorites were not above
the suspicion of homosexuality. When he was a youth in Scotland, it
was reported that he was "in such love" with his cousin Esme Stuart,
Duke of Lennox, that "in the open sight of the people, oftentimes he
will clasp him about the neck with his arms and kiss him."51 As far as
his later favorites were concerned, according to one contemporary "the
love the King showed was as amorously conveyed as if he had mistaken
their sex and thought them ladies; which I have seen Somerset and
Buckingham labour to resemble in the effeminateness of their dressings;
though in... wanton gestures they exceeded any part of woman-
kind...."52 While there is absolutely no evidence as to the precise
nature of his relations with them, in appearance at least there was a
striking divergence of practice and precept on King James' part. Indeed
it was a divergence sufficient to cause one memoirist to state that the
King's last favorite, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, had attained
his greatness "upon no merit [but] by that of his beauty and his prosti-
tution."53 Nonetheless, Charles I had always remained completely blind
to this aspect of his father's character; and doubtless it was partly in the
light of his father's precepts that he felt "bound in conscience" to ignore
Lord Castlehaven's plea for banishment. However, he commuted the
death sentence from hanging to beheading "by reason of his [Castle-
haven's] noble extraction"; and, in accordance with the dictates of his
conscientious temperament, he heeded the second half of Castlehaven's
plea for "time of repentence," and allowed him one month between
sentence and execution.
"It is thought," wrote an anonymous contemporary, "The E.
of Castlehaven's execution is put off, till his servants that are charged
with the same crimes, be tried.... He is said to be very penitent, but
50 James Craigie (ed.), The Basilicon Doron of King James VI (Edinburgh, 1944-I950),
2V.
5I Joseph Bain (ed.), Calendar of Letters and Papers relating to the affairs of the Borders
England and Scotland (1560-1594) (London, I894), I, 82.
52 Francis Osborne, "Traditional Memoirs," in Secret History of the Court of James t
First (Edinburgh, 1811), I, 275.
53 Hutchinson, Memoirs, 67.
462 [ CAROLINE BINGHAM
he will have no other Confessor but a Mass Priest."54 This letter is the
first indication of the fate which was to befall Broadway and Fitzpatrick,
who had been induced by the reassurances of Lord Dorset to turn King's
evidence. They were not, however, tried until after Castlehaven's death.
In the period that Castlehaven spent in the Tower awaiting execu-
tion, he did not remain constant in his determination to have "no other
Confessor but a Mass Priest." He was visited daily by two Anglican
divines, Dr. Winniff, Dean of St. Pauls, and Dr. Wickham, a Chaplain
to the King. He accepted the consolations of Anglicanism, and prepared
to die in that religion.
The execution was fixed for 14 May. On the morning of his death
Lord Castlehaven saw his grave dug within the precincts of the Tower.
Then, dressed in black, and attended by the Lieutenant and Warders of
the Tower, the two clergymen, and "twelve of his own men carrying a
black velvet coffin before him, he ascended the scaffold on Tower
Hill. .. ."55 He made an edifying end. He had written a confession of his
faith in the tenets of Anglicanism, which was read out to the assembled
crowd, and then "with a bold courage and a loud voice" he himself
made a short speech:
"I do confess that God Almighty hath been a most gracious God
unto me, and bestowed on me many and great blessings, which I, most
vile wretch, have most wickedly abused . . . for which I most heartily
ask pardon at the merciful hands of God." He then expressed his grati-
tude to the King for giving him "so long and large a time of re-
pentence," and concluded, "Lastly I beseech you all, when you shall see
the axe falling to separate my head from my body, that you will
accompany my soul with your prayers to the Kingdom of Heaven
where I hope to rest for ever."56 Then "he prepared himself to die,
54 Harleian Mss. 7043f. 21. Letter, signed "J. B."

56 Harleian Mss. 2I94ff. 26-30. In Harleian Mss. 79If. 24, My Lord of Castlehaven, his
last speache woh he made att his execution, uppon Satterday the 14th of May 1631, is a version
which differs somewhat from the version quoted. In this, he is made to profess his
innocence: "but as for those two accusations for which I stand here condemned, but
ready to suffer death as I hope for remission of my sins, I am innocent, not guilty of them."
In Harleian Mss. 6865f. 17, he professes his innocence in similar words, and also in the
printed accounts. No doubt the distinction between sodomy and his own homosexual acts
made him, in his own mind, innocent. His own view of his death was summed up in a
rhymed epitaph, which he apparently wrote for himself, concluding:
. . . who would take such a Countess to his bed
As first gives horns [i.e., cuckolds him] and then cuts off his head?
See also Harleian Mss. 738f. 25.
pulling off his hat, band and doublet; and then tying a handkerchief
about his face, most willingly and patiently laid down his body,
submitting himself to the power of the executioner, who with one small
blow severed his head from his body, which was received by his
servants in a scarlet cloth, and put into a red silk bag, and with his body
put into his coffin, and so carried into the Tower, where it was buried."57
The "throne and people" of England were thus cleansed of the
"abominable impieties" committed by the Earl of Castlehaven; but
the Lords, judges, and lawyers, who at his trial had made it clear that
their attitude toward his crimes was based largely upon the biblical
anathema, could hardly feel that the country was free from the threat of
divine punishment while others guilty of the the same crimes went
unpunished by the law. The Attorney General had declared, to believing
ears, that those crimes "are of that pestiferous and pestilential nature
that if they be not punished they will draw from heaven heavy judg-
ments upon this Kingdom."58
Accordingly, Broadway and Fitzpatrick were brought to trial on
27 June 1631 before Lord Chief Justice Hyde and "a jury of sufficient
and able Wiltshire men."59 Fitzpatrick demanded to know who his
accusers were, and the Lord Chief Justice replied "You have accused
yourself sufficiently." The nature of the trap into which they had been
led was then made clear to Broadway and Fitzpatrick. The latter made a
desperate protest "that he thought neither the laws of the kingdom
required, nor was he bound to be the destruction of himself; what
evidence he had formerly given was for the King against the late Earl,
and no further." To this, the chilling answer of the Lord ChiefJustice
was, "It was true the law did not oblige any man to be his own accuser,
yet where his testimony served to take away anyone's life, and made
himself guilty of the same crime, therein it should serve to cut him off
also."60
Thejurymen evidently felt some pity for Fitzpatrick's position, for
they "demanded of the court satisfaction concerning the words of the
statute which run to charge him alone to be and accounted a felon in law,
that committed buggery with man or beast (for which fact the late Earl
only was guilty, and had suffered)." However, the Lord Chief Justice's
reply made it clear that the statute left no loophole for Fitzpatrick's
57 Anon., The Case of Sodomy, 30.

58 See above, note 29.
59 Anon., The Case of Sodomy, 31.
60 Ibid., 32.
464 I CAROLINE BINGHAM
escape: "Forasmuch as every accessary to a felony is a felon in law, so he

being a voluntary prostitute, when he was not only of understanding
and years to know the heinousness of the sin, but also of strength to have
withstood his Lord, he therefore was so far forth guilty."6I In accor-
dance with this decision, both Fitzpatrick and Broadway were found
guilty on the evidence of their own testimonies, and sentenced to death
by hanging. The execution took place on 6 July, and before his death
Fitzpatrick described how he had been induced to turn King's evidence:
... He proceeded with relation how he had been examined by my
Lord Chief Justice, touching the corruptness of my Lord of Castle-
haven's life, wherein he no ways confessed any thing to prejudice the
said Earl.
That being within three days after sent for before the Lords of the
Council [i.e., the Privy Council], my Lord Dorset ... had entrapped and
ensnared him to his destruction, for that saying upon his honour, and
speaking it in the plural number [as the mouth of the whole board] that
whatsoever he delivered should no ways prejudice himself, he thereby
got him to declare the Earl guilty of the sin of buggery; wherein himself
being a party was the only cause he now came to suffer death.62
It is significant that before Lord Castlehaven's trial the Lord Chief
Justice had not explained to Fitzpatrick, or to Broadway, the legal
position regarding accessories to a felony, as he explained it to thejury
at the trial of Broadway and Fitzpatrick. And it is clear that the two of
them were made use of by Dorset in the most cynical fashion. Obviously
the necessity of punishing "abominable impieties" was considered far
more important than considerations of personal integrity on the part of
either Sir Nicholas Hyde or Lord Dorset; and Broadway and Fitz-
patrick, in the impiousness of their conduct, were obviously considered
to be unworthy of the privilege normally accorded to a King's evidence.
The dishonorable treatment of Broadway and Fitzpatrick is probably
more revealing of the seventeenth-century attitude toward deviant sex
than anything else connected with the case of Lord Castlehaven.
To the twentieth-century reader, apart from the absolute remote-
ness of the religio-legal attitude, the most curious aspect of the Castle-
haven case will be the importance accorded to Lord Castlehaven's
homosexual practices, by contrast with the complete lack of recognition
of other forms of sexual deviation practiced by himself and either
participated in or witnessed by other members of his household. Thus
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid., 33.
ATTITUDES TOWARD DEVIANT SEX [ 465
it was not obvious in the seventeenth century, as in the twentieth, that

Lord Castlehaven's treatment of his Countess, of her daughter Elizabeth,
and of Blandina contained an element of the pleasure in sexual cruelty
for which we now use the word sadism. While it was shocking to Sir
Thomas Coventry that Castlehaven had "abused" his daughter-in-law,
it was infinitely more shocking to him-i.e., to the seventeenth-century
mind-that Castlehaven had wished Skipwith to be the father of her
child; for, as Coventry put it, "having honour and fortune to leave
behind you, you would have the impious and spurious offspring of a
harlot to inherit."63 The offense against the social order was more
grievous than the offense against the person. Then, the voyeurism
which the twentieth-century reader will recognize in the statements of
Lady Castlehaven that "he delighted to see the act done"64 and of
Fitzpatrick that "the Earl himself took delight not only in being an
actor, but a spectator while other men did it,"65 was not, of course,
recognized in the seventeenth century as a form of sexual deviation-
then it was simply contributory evidence that Castlehaven was a man
who, doubtless since he was inconstant in religion, had "given himself
over to lust"66 of every sort. It is scarcely necessary to add that the
concept of "sexual deviation" as opposed to "sin" was completely
outside the seventeenth-century understanding of the matter: While
from the twentieth-century viewpoint Lord Castlehaven obviously
suffered from psychosexual problems requiring the services of an ana-
lyst, from the seventeenth-century viewpoint he had deliberately broken
the Law of God and the Laws of England, and required the simpler
services of an executioner.
Lord Castlehaven died for having transgressed against the accepted
morality of the society in which he lived, to an extent considered
deserving of death for the reasons illustrated in the foregoing account
of his trial. But society itself was soon to face a great convulsion which
would
... ruin the great work of time
And cast the kingdom old
Into another mold.67
63 Ibid., I8; see above note 46.

64 Harleian Mss. 738f. 25.
65 The Tryal and Condemnation, I8-I9.
66 The Case of Sodomy, I -II.
67 Andrew Marvell, "An Horatian Ode upon Cromwel's Return from Ireland," in
H. J. C. Grierson and G. Bullough (eds.), The Oxford Book of Seventeenth Century Verse
(Oxford, 1934), 754.
The chaste and civilized court of King Charles I, and the whole
fabric of English society with its superficial tranquility and its subterran-
eous tensions and turmoils, were soon utterly engulfed in the great
conflict of the Civil Wars. The society which emerged from that
conflict underwent two violent transformations within a remarkably
short time: the Commonwealth brought a period of repression and
enforcement of morality unparalleled in English history; the Restora-
tion brought the immediate reaction consequent upon a sudden sense of
release, and society plunged with gusto into a period of unprecedented
permissiveness. John Aubrey, whose marvelous powers of observation
and neat turns of phrase crystallize so many aspects of seventeenth-
century life, summed up the contrasting states of mind prevalent in
these two periods. In his brief life of the engraver Wenceslas Hollar he
wrote "I remember he [Hollar] told me that when he first came
into England (which was a serene time of peace) that the people, both
poor and rich, did look cheerfully, but at his return he found the coun-
tenances of the people all changed, melancholy, spiteful, as if be-
witched."68 However, the Restoration brought the return of their
former cheerfulness, and "after the King came in I never heard of any
that were troubled in conscience, or that hung himself, as in Oliver's
time, when nothing but praying and preaching was used."69
But, while Aubrey could regard his fellow human beings with
compassion and humor whether he saw them melancholy or cheerful,
perfect or imperfect, their vagaries were not so gently observed by all.
The permissiveness of society from the Restoration to the end of the
century excited the fury of moralists, who vituperated against the vices
which they saw practiced with an impunity unimaginable a few years
earlier. In 1699 an account of Lord Castlehaven's trial was published
with an anonymous preface in which his offenses were violently casti-
gated, and also presented as having become deplorably commonplace:
Ravishing Women was a crime rarely heard of among our ancestors
... yet now this sin is grown so common, that scarce a Sessions passes,
wherein there is not one or more Convicted of Rape, and that in the
most scandalous manner, too, upon the Bodies of mere Children...
Another abomination that shocks our Natures, and puts our Modesty
to the Blush, to see it so commonly perpetrated, is the Devilish and
Unnatural Sin of Buggery, a Crime that sinks a Man below the Basest
Epithet, is so Foul that it admits of no Aggravation, and cannot be
68 Aubrey, Brief Lives, 24I.
69 Ibid., 38.
expressed in its Horror, but by the Doleful Shrieks and Groans of the
Damned70
While it is obvious that "ravishing women" had never been a rare

crime, it must be observed that homosexuality also had never been as
uncommon as the Attorney General prosecuting Lord Castlehaven in
163I, and the anonymous author in I699, declared it to have been.
Donne's satire on London society in the I59os had contained the lines
Why shouldst thou (that doest not only approve
But in rank itchy lust, desire, and love
the nakedness and bareness to enjoy
Of thy plump muddy whore, or prostitute boy)
Hate virtue, though she be naked and bare?7I
But evidently by the end of the following century the practice of
deviant sex was not only to be found in the murkier depths of London
life, but in polite society:
Pride, Luxury, and Irreligion, were the infernal Parents of Sod-
omy ... and he must have neither Eyes, nor Ears, that knows not how
egregiously the same Vices Reign amongst us also.... And that
Delicata Insania, Effeminate Madness, had banished all manly Virtues.
Instead of those Noble Characters of Virtue, Wisdom and Courage, the
great things in Vogue are, that the Fop Eats and Drinks nicely, manages
his Whore, his Snuff-Box, his Wig, his Comb and Glass discreetly,
mouths his Oaths finely, and handles his Knife and Fork to Admira-
tion !72
The people whose debauched habits and elegant manners aroused

this particular moralist to such a frenzy of disapproval, whether many of
them were indeed as decadent as he supposed, were capable of viewing
deviant sex with a worldly tolerance that would have been almost
unimaginable in 163 . The polite society of the late seventeenth century
was amused by plays in which a great variety of sexual activity was
unequivocally presented. For instance, in Vanburgh's "The Relapse"
there appears the character of Coupler, an ageing homosexual pander.
The following exchange occurs between Coupler and Young Fashion:
Coupler: Ha! you young lascivious rogue, you!
let me put my hand in your bosom, sirrah!
Fashion: Stand off, old Sodom!
70 The Tryal and Condemnation, preface (no pagination).
7I John Donne, "Satyre I," in John Hayward (ed.), John Donne: Complete Verse and
Selected Prose (London, I962), 122.
72 The Tryal and Condemnation, preface.
468
468 || CAROLINE
CAROLINEBINGHAM
BINGHAM
And
And aa little
little further
furtheron
onininthe
thesame
same
scene
scene
Fashion
Fashion [promising
[promisingfuture
futuregratitude]:
gratitude]:. . .. .my
. my
soul
soul
is thine!
is thine!
Coupler:
Coupler: Pox
Poxo'o'thy
thysoul!
soul!give
giveme
methy
thy
warm
warm
body....73
body....73
Nonetheless,
Nonetheless,those
thosewho
wholaughed
laughed atat
"The
"The
Relapse"
Relapse"in 1696
in 1696on the
on the
stage,
stage,
and
and in
in print
printin in1697,
1697,could
couldstill
still
bebe
reminded
reminded in in
thethe
lastlast
yearyear
of the
of the
century,
century, if
if they
theybought
boughtthe
thepamphlet
pamphlet entitled
entitled"The
"The
Tryal
Tryal
andand
Condem-
Condem-
nation
nation of
of Mervin
MervinLord
LordAudley,
Audley,Earl
Earl
ofof
Castlehaven..
Castlehaven..
.," that
.," that
the the
publisher
publisher had
hadthought
thoughtgood
goodtoto
issue
issue
it it
so so
that
that
by by
reading
reading
it "Men
it "Men
might
might
be terrified,
terrified,and
andscared
scaredfrom
fromthose
thoseSins
Sins
that
that
areare
attended
attended
withwith
nothing
nothing
but
but Infamy
Infamy and
andDeath
Death[i.e.,
[i.e.,the
the
death
death
penalty]
penalty]
in in
thisthis
World,
World,
and and
Eternal
Eternal Damnation
Damnationininthe
thenext."74
next."74
Bruce Mazlish
Comment The editors of TheJournal of Interdisciplinary History,

with Mrs. Bingham's agreement and encouragement, have asked me to
indicate in what ways the interdisciplinary approach of psychohistory
might complement the author's analysis. I propose simply to raise a
number of questions.
The first concerns Castlehaven himself. As Mrs. Bingham points
out, a "lack of information .. . makes it impossible to offer any sugges-
tion as to the cause of these [psychological or sexual] abnormalities"
(449) other than that Mervyn was the only son in a household of sisters.
We can, I think, rescue two other crumbs of information. There is an
ambivalence in Mervyn Touchet's name-combining his mother's and
father's names-that may have additionally predisposed him to uncer-
tainty about his own sexual roles; his sister Eleanor's particular belief
that she was a reincarnation of the prophet Daniel-notice, a man, not
a woman-supports the notion that sexual ambiguity ran deep in the
Touchet family. With such crumbs, however, we shall certainly not
make many historical loaves.
Another trait of Castlehaven's character, this one more strongly
73 Sir John Vanburgh, The Relapse, in Eugene Waith (ed.), Restoration Drama (New
York, I968), 418-42I (I, iii).
74 The Tryal and Condemnation, preface. Such examples retained their power to terrify
until the nineteenth century, for sodomy continued to be punishable by death until
1861, when the "Offences against the Person Act" reduced the maximum penalty to life
imprisonment. Other homosexual acts were subject to varying terms of imprisonment.
Since I967, all homosexual acts have ceased to be illegal in England if committed by
consenting adults (i.e., persons over twenty-one) in private.

Seventeenth-Century Attitudes Toward Deviant Sex

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Seventeenth-Century Attitudes Toward Deviant Sex

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Seventeenth-Century Attitudes toward Deviant Sex

Author(s): Caroline Bingham

first Earl of Castlehaven in the peerage of Ireland, and of his

loathing of Broadway rather than by a sense of outraged

illusions concerning her husband's character, could scarcely have

22 The Tryal and Condemnation, I6.

Lordship may in others breed compassion, I desire your Lordsh

The prisoner is honourable, the crimes dishonourable of w

It is obvious that the basis of this horror was religious, and at

Lord Castlehaven, at this stage merely under accusation,

He then went on to warn the peers against accepting the plea of

The charge of prevaricating with his religion obviously weighed

polemically conscious seventeenth-century man the logic of his

35 One of Lord Castlehaven's servants accounted for his "prevarication" as follows:

they were of "mean and base extraction"; second, because "witnesses

distinction in reality between sodomy and what Castlehaven c

54 Harleian Mss. 7043f. 21. Letter, signed "J. B."

57 Anon., The Case of Sodomy, 30.

escape: "Forasmuch as every accessary to a felony is a felon in law, so he

it was not obvious in the seventeenth century, as in the twentieth, that

63 Ibid., I8; see above note 46.

While it is obvious that "ravishing women" had never been a rare

The people whose debauched habits and elegant manners aroused

Comment The editors of TheJournal of Interdisciplinary History,

Вам также может понравиться