Talk:Droit du seigneur/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Deflower?

Herodotus writes that virgins in 5th century B.C. Babylon were obliged to prostitute themselves in the temple of Ishtar, allowing a stranger to deflower them before they were allowed to marry (Herodotus I.199).

Think this should be change as "deflower" doesn’t sound very encyclopaedic suggest something like

"Herodotus writes that virgins in 5th century B.C. Babylon were obliged to prostitute themselves to a stranger in the temple of Ishtar before they were allowed to marry"

As I see it prostituting a virgin implies deflowering so isn't necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Prostituting themselves implies that they were paid for the act. 81.129.180.47 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Honor rape

A similar issue that could possibly be covered is the concept of honor rape, which is an archaic practice of allowing a woman to be raped by another man as a punishment for a crime that one of her male relatives might have committed. [1] [2] [3] ADM (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

An Acronym

I've heard that a certain four-letter word that begins with "Fuck" is an acronym that means something like Fornication Under Consent of King, meaning that if a woman got married but did it with her husband before the king, it'd be considered fornication. Is that right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.127.152.35 (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Dactylion (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All alleged English-language acronyms from before World War II can be assumed to be urban myth, this being a prime example. John W. Kennedy (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Except futhark and its cognates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.235.131 (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthark is the name of an alphabet and like "alphabet", it is not an acronym.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Soviet propaganda

I recall reading that Soviet propaganda put it about that ?19th century British industrialists had droit de seigneur on the daughters of their workers. Can anyone else confirm this (and if so add it to the article)? 93.96.236.8 (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that claim appears in Orwell's 1984 when describing "Ingsoc" ideology but as a literary reference it's pretty obscure and only tenuously linked to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.115.167.59 (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I hear that as well,but as I recall,it is widely acknowledged that it is just an acronym made up recently and that the "F word" is much older than that phrase.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.4.238 (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich Engels mentioned employers having the "right of first night" in the Condition of the Working Class in England which might be the source of the Soviet claims. I removed this from the article, however, as it is clear in the context that he is talking about sexual abuse of employees, regardless of the day, or their marital status.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Maximinus II

From Lactantius: "Eunuchs and panders made search everywhere, and no sooner was any comely face discovered, than husbands and parents were obliged to withdraw. Matrons of quality and virgins were stripped of their robes, and all their limbs were inspected, lest any part should be unworthy of the bed of the emperor. Whenever a woman resisted, death by drowning was inflicted on her; as if, under the reign of this adulterer, chastity had been treason. Some men there were, who, beholding the violation of wives whom for virtue and fidelity they affectionately loved, could not endure their anguish of mind, and so killed themselves. While this monster ruled, it was singular deformity alone which could shield the honour of any female from his savage desires. At length he introduced a custom prohibiting marriage unless with the imperial permission; and he made this an instrument to serve the purposes of his lewdness. After having debauched freeborn maidens, he gave them for wives to his slaves. His conflicts also imitated the example of the emperor, and violated with impunity the beds of their dependants. For who was there to punish such offences? As for the daughters of men of middle rank, any who were inclined took them by force. Ladies of quality, who could not be taken by force, were petitioned for, and obtained from the emperor by way of free gift. Nor could a father oppose this; for the imperial warrant having been once signed, he had no alternative but to die, or to receive some barbarian as his son-in-law."[4]

To me this sounds like a clear case from Roman times, but I didn't find any secondary sources discussing it. I hope someone here can look into it further. (I also don't know what "conflicts" are in the translation; presumably some military rank?) Wnt (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Herodotus

Herodotus does not recount this custom amongst the tribe of the "Adyrmachidae". What he describes is a custom whereby the chief selects a bride from amongst eligible young women. The same custom is followed today amongst the Zulus and Swazi's. And this was probably the custom in Babylon as well. These are very far from the king "deflowering" ALL young women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oroonoko not an example

The expressed suspicion is correct. The episode in Oroonoko is a simple case of royal rape, not an instance of jus primae noctis, real or imagined. The example should be removed. (I don’t want to do it myself because I don’t know what the protocol is, once the “citation needed” is in place.) John W. Kennedy (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading simplification

I think the introductory statement that "There is no historical evidence that such a right ever existed" and citing only one source is inappropriate, because it gives the impression that (1) a single historian's conclusion constitutes a consensus among experts, and (2) there was never anything even resembling the droit du seigneur or jus primae noctis at any point in the history of the human race (even if that's not what the author of the introduction meant).

It seems to be true that no credible modern historian has ever found droit du seigneur written into European laws, but a phenomenon can exist without legal codification (like if priests aren't allowed to marry but they openly have families anyway), and informal practices resembling the droit du seigneur have certainly existed at various times in various places, even in modern times. Take for example the BBC article on rape in Uttar Pradesh. There was probably never any law sanctioning it (in modern times at least), but that didn't stop it from becoming an established practice.

The notion that higher members of a hierarchy have authority over lower members has been very common in history (in some societies more than others), and it's no surprise that this notion of hierarchical authority has been extended to the questions of whether someone is "allowed" to have sex with another person, and whether that person is "allowed" to refuse. I don't have the sources at my fingertips to back up this view, but I'm sure many historians and cultural anthropologists would agree. I wonder what experts on the history and sociology of rape would say about this topic. (If I had time I'd go find some and ask if they want to contribute to this article.)

My point is that the introduction is too sweeping a generalization and should be rewritten to reflect that there are examples of "droit du seigneur" type behavior or customs in various societies in various historical periods, but contrary to the legend spread by Voltaire and several historians, it was never a codified legal principal (at least in Europe).

Zip-x (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

the maccabees

it is mentioned in the talmud that during the time of the revolt against the greeks, the greek ruler would have the bride for the first night. it should me mentioned in the english entry as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.164.83 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Common Law

I am going to remove a claim that "In Britain its legal basis was under Common Law.". I doubt very much that could be true, given what I (a Common Law lawyer) know of the Common Law, and no evidence is cited in support of that contention. Also "Britain" could refer to a number of different jurisdictions with rather different histories. Francis Davey (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV, unbalanced, and contradictory (is this article being vandalised?)

I have attched the NPOV warning and the banner regarding contradiction as, after following up the references cited both on this talk page AND in the article itself, it seems to me the facts do not substantiate the claim that the droit du seigneur was a myth.

Only one, modern, historical commentary (not an acount) is cited as foundation for the claim that the right is a myth, however one account of the practice itself is proof that it was not a myth. As there are several, in my opinion, cast iron references that testify to such a right being practised it seems to me to follow that it cannot reasonably then be called a myth. It may be considered reasonable however to add a section to the article which covers any commentaries that consider it fictitious.

References that testify to the fact of the right, and cited here, include:

1. the Epic of Gilgamesh 1300-700BC (cited in the article)
2. Jesse Dukeminier Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law and James Krier Professor at Law of University of Michigan Law School: "the custom never existed in England, though it did in Scotland until abolished by Malcolm III, successor to Macbeth." - Dukeminier & Krier, Property, Note 1, p. 214, referencing 2 Blackstone Commentaries *83 (cited above)
3. the Roman historian Lactantius (ca. 240 – ca. 320) advisor to Emperor Constantine I, translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (cited above)

It occurs to me that this situation may have arisen because of a confusion between terms such as: right; custom; law; etc. Even so, the practice cannot be said to be made a myth through semantics. However, the observations of this dispute have been made several times here in the Talk page and the substantiating references supplied, so it may be that the article is being vandalised and should be more closely monitored.

LookingGlass (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

According what I found, that right wasn't, actually, nor a myth nor an official right but an unofficial right (like the right of the strongest) which never was legal (at least, not in France). However, there is myth about this right : in the XIXth century, that myth claimed that right, like other immoral rights, was part of the positive right in France before the revolution.

About the virginity and the first night/jus primae noctis in this right, it seems to be part of an anglo-saxon variant of this right. I never read something like this in documents writed in French. These two adds also can be a late invention.

Nicolas.le-guen (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Stumbled in here by chance. Thought a fresh pair of nonspecialist eyes might be useful, as this talk page seems to indicate this is article is at risk of becoming an edit war target. Thoughts:-

1. Article reads pretty well in terms of its facts. I got the sense pretty well that there are lots of references to it in cultural and historical sources, but few (no?) actual recorded instances.
2. There seems to be argument over "right" versus "law" reading. Can't offer opinion, but I put it to you that this is not the primary cause of the conflict.
3. There's not necessarily any internal inconsistency here. The intro defines as medieval, and (implicitly) western European. I read it as "England and France". BUT the rest of the article goes on to discuss the right and its equivalents in much more global and temporally wide senses. Note only 1 of LookingGlasses three points above addresses medieval (in the loosest sense) times.

I put it to you - as a group - that cleaning up your definitions will sort this out. rewrite the intro to make it clear that references to the west Europe medieval practice are disputed, but that the idea is well established, then a second paragraph to say the term is also applied more widely to refer to equivalent practices in other cultures. 1st section should discuss only the european medieval context, very carefully cited, then a contrasting paragraph explaining the conflicting view. Second section can then be the global context, i.e., "history" (but I don't think that's necessarily the best term). Then the cultural references stuff separately.

Hope this helps some. Also, as an aside, I don't see any deliberate ongoing vandalism here, just legitimate WP:BOLD between well-intentioned editors and good faith but unhelpful tweaks occasionally. WP:GOODFAITH, guys. DanHobley (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. I have added in the reference to Blackstone. Because of the dates, and his reference to Scotland, it is unlikely that Blackstone was influenced by Voltaire. The belief in the right was clearly more widespread than the article suggests. I also think the fact that Boece mentioned it is relevant, even though his history is legendary, because it shows again that the belief was widespread. Also, the fact is that this "right" was abolished by Ferdinand V of Spain in Article 9 the "Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe" of 1486. Alain Boureau confirms this fact in his book cited in the article (p 239), and says it is a "famous and troubling text". Unfortunately, I have only looked at the book via Google Books, so I can't see how he deals with this piece of evidence. Clearly, it is an overstatement to say there is "no evidence of this alleged right".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on my research so far, Alain Boureau is excessively focussed on France and is partisan. An example of his partisanship is that he says the reference in Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 1 to payment of "maidenhead" is about paying merchet. Not credible.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Fornication Under Consent of the King

Hello, As a French native, I knew the expression "Droit de cuissage" but not "Droit du seigneur" which I never heard untill today. "Droit de cuissage", is still used in the common language as a 2nd degree image, specially in HRM - human resources management. But I'm wondering if this couldn't have something to do with one of the multiple ethymologies of Fuck : Fornication Under Consent of the King... What do you think ? -- DiagMan (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Kurds and Armenians?

The allegation that some Kurds engaged in the practice appears to be tied to a single source, and it is unclear whether the source is valid or peer-reviewed. Should a disclaimer be placed on the claim? BrotherSulayman (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems questionable.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ius vs jus

The article, at various points, spells the Latin term either jus primae noctus or ius primae noctus, without explaination. I would suggest that both spellings be included in the opening paragraph (with the appropriate commentary on i/j in Latin and its derivatives, and/or links thereto), and the the article use either one or the other from then on. Since use of "j" vs "i" in modern renderings of Latin seems to be commonplace (one would never encounter res iudicata in contemporary legal discourse, e.g.) I would tend to prefer "jus" here, but don't care much either way.50.53.107.181 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. The article needs to be consistent, although it's difficult to enforce that when anyone can come in and edit at any moment. Ryn78 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Joss Whedon

This article states that Whedon left Twitter as a direct result of backlash from feminist parties decrying his use of this term - are we sure that is why he left? http://www.themarysue.com/joss-whedon-why-he-left-twitter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.218.228 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Translations

We have jambage and cuissage translated as "leg" and "thigh," but that's not quite accurate - the proper French words for those are jambe and cuisse. Jambage and cuissage are something more like "using the leg" and "using the thigh". 2602:306:CFEA:170:7488:6DE1:77F8:6777 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The right of getting one's leg over? I don't think it's exactly translatable, but what we've got is OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Misquoting Herodotus

If Herodotus is translated accurately, he was not describing a similar custom. "They are also the only tribe with whom the custom obtains of bringing all women about to become brides before the king, that he may choose such as are agreeable to him" probably means that the chief had the right to select a bride for himself from amongst those being married, not a custom of the chief deflowering all brides-to-be.101.98.74.13 (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Cultural references

I find it piteous that this article contains a long, "cultural references" section made up of a list of trivia, that is longer than the serious historical content of the article. I find that this section adds nothing to the understanding of Droit du seigneur and if it were up to me, I would delete the entire section. As it stands, one might leave the Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky references, if expanded to indicate their relevance, as indicators that serious men of letters were both aware of it, and left references to it in their works and why that matters, but the article loses nothing by removing the other ones on the list. Anybody who wants to, can look up indiscriminate trivia on Google. If there is no clear impact on popular culture for a particular item, it's not enough to simply list the item, with or without a citation. I've just removed one from the list, already marked {{citation needed}}.

If this section is kept, it should not be a list, which just attracts more trivia; it should be recast as a paragraph or two of narrative explaining why and how popular culture has used this topic, and what effect it has had. See also MOS:POPCULT. Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between contemporary cultural references (which are largely trivial) and historical cultural references. The references by Shakespeare, for example, show that it was believed to be a practice in his time, and was not invented by Voltaire as some have said. It is sometimes hard to divide historical references from historical cultural references. Gilgamesh is listed as a historical reference, while it is of course a legend...--Jack Upland (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jack; yes, agreed. I've made a start by removing those entries which have no source listed. (Some of those are Shakespeare, and could be put back with a simple ref.) After an interval, we can see about removing indiscriminate trivia, even if it is referenced. Mathglot (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the historical cultural references into the historical references. It doesn't seem useful to divide the two, though we should make clear when Voltaire is writing as a philosopher and when he is writing as a playwright etc. Clearly literature, legend, and history blend together. When some people are claiming the "right" was invented after the Middle Ages, it doesn't really matter whether the reference is "cultural" or not, what matters is when the idea was expressed, whatever point of view you take.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

On consideration, I think that the contemporary cultural references aren't worth keeping. The Flying Yorkshireman and The War Lord seem to be minor works, without any attention by secondary sources. The reference in 1984 seems to be just a passing reference, and not an important part of the book. Braveheart doesn't seem to have much attention by "scholars" to judge from the references. There seem to be a lot of sources relating to the practice in Scotland so the film might not be so inaccurate in that regard. All these sources prove is that the issue continued to be referenced in culture into the 20th century. This seems to be a worthwhile point to make, but do we need to enumerate every example in which the issue is aired? We don't, and a random sample of references is even worse. The question is, whether we leave this hanging, or just get rid of it for the time being in anticipation of its replacement by a better piece of text.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the section. I think it should be reinstated when we have secondary sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding 1984 to Cultural References

The sudden upsurge in interest in 1984 combined with the #metoo movement makes the reference to jus primae noctis in 1984 particularly relevant.

The passage in 1984 Winston (the main character) is talking about how capitalists (the villains in 1984) were portrayed a children's history textbook: "There was also something called the jus primae noctis, which would probably not be mentioned in a textbook for children. It was the law by which every capitalist had the right to sleep with any woman working in one of his factories."

Examples of renewed interest in 1984: · George Orwell’s ‘1984’ Is Suddenly a Best-Seller | https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/books/1984-george-orwell-donald-trump.html · 2017 looks more like ‘1984’ than 1984 ever did | https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/11/national/media-national/2017-looks-like-1984-1984-ever/#.WqK-ePkrJaQ · We're living '1984' today | https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/03/opinion/beale-1984-now/index.html

Connection to the #metoo movement can be seen in studies like this one that says 1 in 4 Men Think it's Okay to Expect Sex From an Employee http://fortune.com/2018/03/08/sexual-harassment-poll/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by K00kykelly (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

To be mentioned, it needs to have some third-party source indicating that it's in the book (i.e., not just a cite to where it's found in the book itself), and some indication that published sourced have found this to be meaningful or important. The connection to the #metoo movement, in particular, is WP:OR, and cannot be included without a source making that connection. The observation in the comment above is WP:SYNTH. TJRC (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Fabricated after the Middle Ages?

According to the lead:

There is no evidence of the right being exercised in medieval Europe, and all known references to it are from later time periods. Overall, medieval jus primae noctis can be considered a historical fiction fabricated after that era.

While this has citations, the article gives many early references.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I have reworded the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have now removed this from the text: "Some consider the medieval jus primae noctis a historical fiction fabricated after that era." (Which is a modified version of the previous text.) As far as I can see, Bullough doesn't say that. He says that some think it was a real custom, others think it was a legend, and he concludes that "the legend reflected reality", in terms of the power that lords had over serfs. Saying it is "fabricated" is a large claim, and saying that this happened after the medieval period is a bit of stretch. The earliest historical evidence (apart from literary evidence) seems to appear at the end of the Middle Ages (c 1500), not a significant time afterwards. I don't think we should put this claim in the lead without a citation to back it up.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Introduction again

The introduction currently says, with amendments by me and others: "Others say that there is no evidence of this, and that all known references to the custom are from later time periods." There are two sources.

Britannia says: "The custom is paralleled in various primitive societies, but the evidence of its existence in Europe is all indirect, involving records of redemption dues paid by the vassal to avoid enforcement of some lordly rights. Many intellectual investigations have been devoted to the problem. A considerable number of feudal rights were related to the vassal’s marriage, particularly the lord’s right to select a bride for his vassal, but these were almost invariably redeemed by a money payment, or “avail”; and it seems likely that the droit du seigneur amounted, in effect, only to another tax of this sort."

Wettlaufer says: "This is the only medieval testimony indicating anything like actual sexual relations between the lords and the peasant brides in the context of the right of the first night, and the evidence concerns only sexual harassment, not sexual intercourse. We can infer from this example that in the late medieval period, a time when socioeconomic status differences were diminishing, the lords used the jus primae noctis as a sign (display) of superiority over their dependent and unfree peasants."

I don't think these sources support the statement.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added a more suitable citation.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Etruscans

When the plebians of the Etruscan city of Volsinii rebelled against the aristocrats in 280 BC, "They took their wives for themselves and placed the daughters of the nobles under the jus primae noctis, while all their former masters on whom they could lay hands were tortured to death."

This is problematic because the quotation is (I presume) from the modern day author, but it suggests that the jus primae noctis was a term used in the ancient world. It would be better to explain exactly what happened than to use anachronistic terms.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Rape and essence

The essence of this idea, and the effect of the supposed "right" for the "feudal lords" (aristocrats) to have intercourse with "subordinate women" is that this is forced sexual relations, not consentual sexual relations. Arguing that the word "forced" is overstated would come with what basis? One basis that these women are "subordinate" and that the language "subordinate" is sufficient, but its like saying "it's not forced because the women were servants." Which is like saying "its not rape because it was legal." Which opens up the idea that some forced sexual intercourse is legal, for example where couples have abusive expressive forms. Using the term "feudal lords" here is obfuscating, as it only links to a general topic feudalism, which says nothing about whom these "lords" are. Aristocrats could be argued is too general, but that's not a bad thing; perhaps there is another term. -Inowen (nlfte) 08:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why "aristocrats" is better than "feudal lords", but we certainly shouldn't have both.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

MontChevalier's Edits

I have undone MontChevalier's recent edits. None of them have citations, and generally they are very opinionated, as typified by: "As time goes on, it's becoming clearer that all those that claim the law existed were men who hated these periods; these institutions; their religions, or these peoples". Others are simply irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

But these are actually true. Like in the case of the Scots, where there are English literally blasting them for something they have no proof over. And you added some guy from the U.S. who has no credibility on the matter (The guy is a sexologist). The very fact he's from an institution in the U.S. already disproves his opinion. Or in the case of Voltaire who hated the Catholic institution of the period, or the case of the communists who outright hated the monarchist institution. This is not an opinion, but a reality presented exactly in this very page. I was giving credence to something one had to conclude by reading the whole thing into a small paragraph so readers didn't have to waste time.

I read the very same book on chapter 9 of the Sentencia, and it does in fact detail a condition in regards to marriage and coaxing people into paying it, rather than an actuality of the deed being done. You haven't even given me the chance to discuss with you before you even made the decision yourself. If I give you a source, will allow me to keep it as is? Or is your intent in poor taste because you have some manner of bias?

MontChevalier (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't delete information because the cited author is American or a sexologist. Your opinion might be right, but we have to acknowledge all points of view. And be neutral. So, yes, if you have a source and you use neutral wording, of course you can edit the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Well how about next time you give me more time to grab the sources before you delete everything. Jesus, what a shitty website.

MontChevalier (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I did consider leaving your edits there, but the overall tone was inappropriate. I have no way of knowing how soon you will respond, if at all. You can always retrieve your previous edits if you want to reuse them in some form.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That answers EVERYTHING. I have got to stop using this website. It's full of horrible people.

MontChevalier (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2