FRECKLED CONSCIOUSNESS

Various victims of rape in Italy in the early seventeenth century have left us a wealth of information through the court records. Clear indications in Elizabeth Cohen’s article show us that court was not the first choice for woman to remedy a perceived loss of social honor to herself and family. Rape victims saw marriage as the responsibly of their attacker; they had taken from them a commodity of measurable value. A broad spectrum of relationships is represented in the cases presented, yet the one common thread is a desire to legitimize the sexual activity in marriage. The loss of virginity by force and or coercion was a grievance the courts could not ignore because of the importance of chastity to the medieval family economy. The issue at stake was essentially the market value of the women’s second dowry. The individual woman in this last desperate attempt to defend her value in society also found herself in a unique situation before the court to speak her mind. The opportunity was rare, yet these woman seemed prepared and demonstrated their individuality, but beyond this they remained defined by their sexuality.
These cases would not be in court had the men agreed to marriage. We know the rape victim would prefer direct compensation to a legal battle. In a litigious society the threat of action produces more results than actual court orders, this fact seems timeless. A large number of victims were to become brides and avoid the public forum of a court. Across the spectrum of possibilities it seems a minority of each made its way to the court of the Governor of Rome: The simple flirtations that lead to broken promises. The active woman seeking to force her destiny beyond the wishes of her parents. The violent and arbitrary case we associate rape with today. Each unique woman stood before the state and created a rhetorical independence. These victims created a greater sense of ownership to their experiences and themselves than a woman who did not talk about her experiences(170).
“Upon Chastity, declared Samuel Johnson in the eighteenth century, ‘all the property in the world depends’”(King 31). This was perhaps never truer than in Italy at the start of the seventeenth century. Daughters forged new bonds with respectable families and brought new honor and standing to her family. They had two primary assets: their dowry and their virginity. Families went to great lengths to protect their daughters from possible attack, but more importantly they thought for themselves. The limited role of woman was an attempt to keep them chaste. The fact that children often lived separate in their teen years made these ideals difficult to realize. A woman was supposed to be a virgin or a wife. At the same time a double standard existed as no one expected a males to be as virtuous. These contradictory beliefs in their society made the intervention of the courts necessary. It was not practical to ignore the various victims of rape. They were neither virgins nor wives, what were they to be, they needed to be defined in relationship to a male (Cohen 173).
From the courts point of view again it was simplest for the victim to marry her attacker. The standard statements included blood, resistance and promises made (either marriage or gifts). These were the first details sought by the courts. Blood and pain showed that the woman was indeed a virgin in their mind. Resistance was described to show that she was not a willing party to the act. These facts created the legal definition of rape. It is interesting to note that in the cases where woman seem to be forcing their own destiny pain was also an integral aspect. As bold as a woman may have been in court, she certainly would not forget what specifically the court wanted to hear.
The material presented in the Cohen article offers us several portraits of woman in very specific situations. The first two cases are examples of passive victims. A young girl raped twice by a stranger. She speaks of the attacker as a devil and provides vivid detail. This girl already ruined, as her mother perceived, and was doubly injured by having a stranger as attacker. This would be the worst case scenario for the time. No one to marry. No one to take to court for compensation. Nothing to be done. Could she escape from her sexuality? Powerless and in poverty the question seems nonsensical.
Another case involves a woman who is raped after a period of flirtation. In this and similar cases there was always promises of marriage. To the church at this time the doctrine of mutual consent defined marriage. Two adults (male over 14, female over 12) could make a binding agreement in private or public and be recognized as a marriage. Men would speak of love and marriage. Some would marry after “taking” their women, others would deny any promises had been made, and the rest would just leave. These are not only medieval options for men, but still present today. What is different is the focus of the society again on the virginity of woman.
Who could escape from sexuality? A modern equivalent question might be: who can escape the dollar? A society must be based on something. What was the best possible solution to the medieval rape victim? Not for the courts or the parents, but the victim: marriage to the attacker. Where love is present then we must accept that rape held a broader definition in the Italian context, but again the arbitrary victim of violence also preferred marriage.
The woman who sought to follow their own will first began as the others: dismay, fear and anger somehow mixed expertly with love and ambition (Cohen 176). Perhaps their father had been lapse in seeking marriage contracts. He may have wanted to wait for something better. In this situation a woman could assert her will through secret marriage vows, but this surely was more a practical matter than evidence of liberation. The most ambitious women who did trade sexuality for favors were no more liberated. They crossed a line which they could never return and lived their lives in the margins. Their position made them practically speaking more vulnerable. A woman had no rights except in relationship to men. Certain woman must have had liberated beliefs about their own sexuality, but the fact that the entire society was based on the female reproductive system suggests there was no where to escape except perhaps in dreams.
The victims who settled matters according to there will were still operating within the accepted beliefs of the community at large. “A close examination of (Cammila’s) self-presentation leads us to suspect strongly that she was pursing a marriage strategy of her own devising”(Cohen187). In a sense she had escaped directions of her family, but not the conventions of the society. The contradictory assumptions that were the basis of community life created the unique forum where these women found themselves. In essence the courts allowed the society to release some of the pressure created in contradiction. The society could not function unless these questions were addressed.
The women involved seemed to draw on a common sense that was available in the society as a whole. These cases must have been talked about and shared. The process created a bottom line reality that underlined the gentile society. After the loss of virginity women must have been aware somewhat of the process involved. Even if it was a minority of women, there must have been a psychic release of energy for women as a whole. The rhetoric is far beyond what the modern observer would expect to find. These women managed to present themselves not as the society defined them, but how they used the precepts of their society to define themselves. The creation of economic value associated with female virginity bound these women to their community.
Image for a second a society that places a high value on freckles. How would the freckled child escape the reality of value being assigned by the entire society? Understanding how to be freckled, or a woman in Italy in 1602, is the first step to creating freckled consciousness. Women in their rhetoric could make use of the system to define their relationship for themselves. Escaping the nightmare of sexuality would only be possible for a minority of women in times to come. These first steps were required, but the notions of society making rational choices still remain elusive. The modern perspective offers us the choice to work from the outside. This is liberation as far as I can tell. To work from outside, understanding the system inside, to catalyze change. In Italy in 1602, there was no outside for man or woman, yet the rhetoric of these few women force us to ask the question: what made liberation possible? These women are part of the dream, a single step for humanity, even as their own lives remained defined by sexuality. These women understood their system, others spoke of them, and some saw contradiction: society changed eventually. And will again eventually. They defended themselves to the male standard and later other women and men would question that standard.