审判中的叛变十七世纪海员的法律与秩序

IF 1.8 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Richard J Blakemore
{"title":"审判中的叛变十七世纪海员的法律与秩序","authors":"Richard J Blakemore","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article offers a new interpretation of mutiny, and of the ways in which this concept was defined and implemented in maritime law during the seventeenth century. It particularly focuses on British seafarers and the evidence surviving in the papers of the English High Court of Admiralty, placed in a comparative perspective with reference to other states’ legal provision. Scholars of maritime social history have been particularly preoccupied with the idea of mutiny but have rarely provided a precise decision of it, or explored its legal intricacies, while generally basing their ideas on the increasingly punitive regulations issued by state navies. Some have presented mutiny as an essentially responsive action by which mariners expressed grievances and appealed to shared ideas of patriarchal justice. Others have found in mutiny the stirrings of a distinctively maritime tradition of political radicalism which fermented throughout the early modern period and ultimately contributed to the age of revolutions in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Across this divide, most historians have concurred in presenting it as an extreme, and often violent, act of resistance to constituted authority. This article shifts our attention to the supposed origins of this authoritarian system in the seventeenth century and expands our analysis beyond the martial law of state navies, which applied only in a specific and limited number of ships. It begins by considering the fragmented nature of the multiple systems of national, municipal, military, and customary maritime laws which governed seafaring, arguing that even in naval law there was no consistent definition or prosecution of mutiny, and that the provisions of customary law (much more ubiquitous than naval law) were far less draconian than popular myth would suggest. The article then turns to the depositions of mariners presented in admiralty court cases to explore how seafarers themselves delivered narratives about their conduct at sea, countering accusations of mutiny levied by their employers. It is particularly important to take into account the legal purpose and context of these sources, which highlight disputes and divisions and where statements were strategically crafted – on both sides – to pursue certain objectives. Through this analysis of both legal codes and legal practice, this article demonstrates that authority and law at sea were not a simple matter of unconfined power meeting radical resistance, nor of acquiescence to established hierarchies. While conflict, mistreatment, and asymmetries of power were undoubtedly present in early modern seafaring, the evidence from the High Court of Admiralty shows that, even at sea, shipmasters’ and their crews’ actions were shaped by knowledge of maritime law. Moreover, seafarers and their employers (whether commercial or imperial) shared expectations about the limits of commanders’ power and about consensus and compromise aboard ship. Discussion and protest were only considered mutinous when a voyage failed and provoked recriminations over who should bear the fault and the cost: the consequences, more than the act itself, defined its legal status. This article therefore provides novel reflections on the social dimensions of maritime labour and the agency of early modern seafarers within imperial and legal systems.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mutiny on Trial: Law and Order among Seventeenth-Century Seafarers\",\"authors\":\"Richard J Blakemore\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/pastj/gtae031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article offers a new interpretation of mutiny, and of the ways in which this concept was defined and implemented in maritime law during the seventeenth century. It particularly focuses on British seafarers and the evidence surviving in the papers of the English High Court of Admiralty, placed in a comparative perspective with reference to other states’ legal provision. Scholars of maritime social history have been particularly preoccupied with the idea of mutiny but have rarely provided a precise decision of it, or explored its legal intricacies, while generally basing their ideas on the increasingly punitive regulations issued by state navies. Some have presented mutiny as an essentially responsive action by which mariners expressed grievances and appealed to shared ideas of patriarchal justice. Others have found in mutiny the stirrings of a distinctively maritime tradition of political radicalism which fermented throughout the early modern period and ultimately contributed to the age of revolutions in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Across this divide, most historians have concurred in presenting it as an extreme, and often violent, act of resistance to constituted authority. This article shifts our attention to the supposed origins of this authoritarian system in the seventeenth century and expands our analysis beyond the martial law of state navies, which applied only in a specific and limited number of ships. It begins by considering the fragmented nature of the multiple systems of national, municipal, military, and customary maritime laws which governed seafaring, arguing that even in naval law there was no consistent definition or prosecution of mutiny, and that the provisions of customary law (much more ubiquitous than naval law) were far less draconian than popular myth would suggest. The article then turns to the depositions of mariners presented in admiralty court cases to explore how seafarers themselves delivered narratives about their conduct at sea, countering accusations of mutiny levied by their employers. It is particularly important to take into account the legal purpose and context of these sources, which highlight disputes and divisions and where statements were strategically crafted – on both sides – to pursue certain objectives. Through this analysis of both legal codes and legal practice, this article demonstrates that authority and law at sea were not a simple matter of unconfined power meeting radical resistance, nor of acquiescence to established hierarchies. While conflict, mistreatment, and asymmetries of power were undoubtedly present in early modern seafaring, the evidence from the High Court of Admiralty shows that, even at sea, shipmasters’ and their crews’ actions were shaped by knowledge of maritime law. Moreover, seafarers and their employers (whether commercial or imperial) shared expectations about the limits of commanders’ power and about consensus and compromise aboard ship. Discussion and protest were only considered mutinous when a voyage failed and provoked recriminations over who should bear the fault and the cost: the consequences, more than the act itself, defined its legal status. This article therefore provides novel reflections on the social dimensions of maritime labour and the agency of early modern seafarers within imperial and legal systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Past & Present\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Past & Present\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae031\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Past & Present","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae031","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对叛变以及十七世纪海事法界定和实施这一概念的方式进行了新的诠释。文章特别关注英国海员和英国高等海事法院文件中的证据,并参考其他国家的法律规定进行比较。海洋社会史学者对叛变的概念尤为关注,但很少对其做出精确的判定,也很少对其错综复杂的法律问题进行探讨,他们的观点一般都建立在各国海军颁布的惩罚性法规的基础上。一些人认为,兵变本质上是一种响应行动,海员通过这种行动表达不满,并诉诸共同的宗法正义观念。另一些人则从兵变中发现了一种独特的海上政治激进主义传统,这种传统在整个近代早期不断发酵,最终促成了 18 世纪末和 19 世纪初的革命时代。在这一鸿沟中,大多数历史学家都一致认为这是一种极端的、往往是暴力的反抗建制权威的行为。本文将注意力转移到这一专制制度在 17 世纪的起源,并将分析范围扩大到国家海军的戒严法之外,因为戒严法仅适用于特定且数量有限的船只。文章首先考虑了管理航海的国家、市政、军事和习惯海事法等多重体系的分散性,认为即使在海军法中,对叛变也没有一致的定义或起诉,而习惯法(比海军法更普遍)的规定远没有流行的传说中那么严厉。然后,文章转向海事法庭案件中提交的海员证词,探讨海员自己如何讲述他们在海上的行为,反驳雇主对他们的叛变指控。特别重要的是要考虑到这些资料来源的法律目的和背景,它们突出了争议和分歧,以及双方为了达到某些目的而策略性地撰写的陈述。通过对法典和法律实践的分析,本文证明了海上的权威和法律并不是简单的无限制的权力遇到激进的反抗,也不是对既定等级制度的默许。虽然冲突、虐待和权力不对称无疑存在于现代早期的航海活动中,但来自高等海事法院的证据表明,即使在海上,船长及其船员的行为也是由海事法知识决定的。此外,海员和他们的雇主(无论是商业雇主还是帝国雇主)对指挥官的权力限制以及船上的共识和妥协有着共同的期望。只有当航行失败并引发对谁应承担过失和代价的指责时,讨论和抗议才会被视为叛变:后果比行为本身更能决定其法律地位。因此,本文对海事劳动的社会层面以及早期现代海员在帝国和法律体系中的作用进行了新颖的思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mutiny on Trial: Law and Order among Seventeenth-Century Seafarers
This article offers a new interpretation of mutiny, and of the ways in which this concept was defined and implemented in maritime law during the seventeenth century. It particularly focuses on British seafarers and the evidence surviving in the papers of the English High Court of Admiralty, placed in a comparative perspective with reference to other states’ legal provision. Scholars of maritime social history have been particularly preoccupied with the idea of mutiny but have rarely provided a precise decision of it, or explored its legal intricacies, while generally basing their ideas on the increasingly punitive regulations issued by state navies. Some have presented mutiny as an essentially responsive action by which mariners expressed grievances and appealed to shared ideas of patriarchal justice. Others have found in mutiny the stirrings of a distinctively maritime tradition of political radicalism which fermented throughout the early modern period and ultimately contributed to the age of revolutions in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Across this divide, most historians have concurred in presenting it as an extreme, and often violent, act of resistance to constituted authority. This article shifts our attention to the supposed origins of this authoritarian system in the seventeenth century and expands our analysis beyond the martial law of state navies, which applied only in a specific and limited number of ships. It begins by considering the fragmented nature of the multiple systems of national, municipal, military, and customary maritime laws which governed seafaring, arguing that even in naval law there was no consistent definition or prosecution of mutiny, and that the provisions of customary law (much more ubiquitous than naval law) were far less draconian than popular myth would suggest. The article then turns to the depositions of mariners presented in admiralty court cases to explore how seafarers themselves delivered narratives about their conduct at sea, countering accusations of mutiny levied by their employers. It is particularly important to take into account the legal purpose and context of these sources, which highlight disputes and divisions and where statements were strategically crafted – on both sides – to pursue certain objectives. Through this analysis of both legal codes and legal practice, this article demonstrates that authority and law at sea were not a simple matter of unconfined power meeting radical resistance, nor of acquiescence to established hierarchies. While conflict, mistreatment, and asymmetries of power were undoubtedly present in early modern seafaring, the evidence from the High Court of Admiralty shows that, even at sea, shipmasters’ and their crews’ actions were shaped by knowledge of maritime law. Moreover, seafarers and their employers (whether commercial or imperial) shared expectations about the limits of commanders’ power and about consensus and compromise aboard ship. Discussion and protest were only considered mutinous when a voyage failed and provoked recriminations over who should bear the fault and the cost: the consequences, more than the act itself, defined its legal status. This article therefore provides novel reflections on the social dimensions of maritime labour and the agency of early modern seafarers within imperial and legal systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Past & Present
Past & Present Multiple-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
5.60%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Founded in 1952, Past & Present is widely acknowledged to be the liveliest and most stimulating historical journal in the English-speaking world. The journal offers: •A wide variety of scholarly and original articles on historical, social and cultural change in all parts of the world. •Four issues a year, each containing five or six major articles plus occasional debates and review essays. •Challenging work by young historians as well as seminal articles by internationally regarded scholars. •A range of articles that appeal to specialists and non-specialists, and communicate the results of the most recent historical research in a readable and lively form. •A forum for debate, encouraging productive controversy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信