“哦,我可怜的纵火犯,我的纵火犯最能说明问题”:外科医生、普通目击者和格鲁吉亚式英国的鸡奸尸体

IF 0.4 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
S. LeJacq
{"title":"“哦,我可怜的纵火犯,我的纵火犯最能说明问题”:外科医生、普通目击者和格鲁吉亚式英国的鸡奸尸体","authors":"S. LeJacq","doi":"10.7560/jhs31201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A r e p o r t p u b l i s h e d i n 1 7 4 3 informed readers about a recent sodomy trial in Kingston upon Thames.1 One night early that summer, a London waterman had received a tip from a woman selling gingerbread that two “mollies” had just sneaked into Pepper Alley, in Southwark. Mollies were members of an underground queer subculture, mostly workingand lower-middle-class men notorious for their effeminacy and predilection for that “worst of crimes,” sodomy. The waterman understood what the woman was suggesting, and he followed the tip. He stalked the two until they entered a house of office, a lavatory. He spied on them as they whispered together and “talk’d in a very ludicrous manner.” Soon, “he was very well assured, they were Sodomites.” The door could not shut fully with them inside, and through the gap that remained he saw that “they were b——g one another.” In the criminal law, “buggering” had a precise meaning: phallic penetration of the anus. It was a grievous offense, carrying a mandatory capital penalty. But there was no doubt: he “saw them in the very Fact.” The waterman was not satisfied merely with visual inspection. He went to investigate manually but found that the two “were so close that he could not put his Hand between them.” Only “with Difficulty” did he force it in. He grasped the penis and drew it from the other’s anus. (The report renders this action as taking “Hunt’s —— out of the other’s ——.”) In court, the waterman told what he had found. The offending phallus “was wet, and wet his Hand very much.” Some courts and jurists believed that evidence of ejaculation inside the body was necessary to prove this felony.","PeriodicalId":45704,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Sexuality","volume":"31 1","pages":"137 - 168"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"O My Poor Arse, My Arse Can Best Tell\\\": Surgeons, Ordinary Witnesses, and the Sodomitical Body in Georgian Britain\",\"authors\":\"S. LeJacq\",\"doi\":\"10.7560/jhs31201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A r e p o r t p u b l i s h e d i n 1 7 4 3 informed readers about a recent sodomy trial in Kingston upon Thames.1 One night early that summer, a London waterman had received a tip from a woman selling gingerbread that two “mollies” had just sneaked into Pepper Alley, in Southwark. Mollies were members of an underground queer subculture, mostly workingand lower-middle-class men notorious for their effeminacy and predilection for that “worst of crimes,” sodomy. The waterman understood what the woman was suggesting, and he followed the tip. He stalked the two until they entered a house of office, a lavatory. He spied on them as they whispered together and “talk’d in a very ludicrous manner.” Soon, “he was very well assured, they were Sodomites.” The door could not shut fully with them inside, and through the gap that remained he saw that “they were b——g one another.” In the criminal law, “buggering” had a precise meaning: phallic penetration of the anus. It was a grievous offense, carrying a mandatory capital penalty. But there was no doubt: he “saw them in the very Fact.” The waterman was not satisfied merely with visual inspection. He went to investigate manually but found that the two “were so close that he could not put his Hand between them.” Only “with Difficulty” did he force it in. He grasped the penis and drew it from the other’s anus. (The report renders this action as taking “Hunt’s —— out of the other’s ——.”) In court, the waterman told what he had found. The offending phallus “was wet, and wet his Hand very much.” Some courts and jurists believed that evidence of ejaculation inside the body was necessary to prove this felony.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the History of Sexuality\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"137 - 168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the History of Sexuality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7560/jhs31201\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Journal of the History of Sexuality","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7560/jhs31201","RegionNum":2,"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

年夏天早些时候的一个晚上,一个伦敦水工从一个卖姜饼的女人那里得到消息,说有两只“鼹鼠”刚刚溜进了南华克的胡椒巷。mollie是一种地下酷儿亚文化的成员,主要是工人和中下层阶级的男性,他们以娘娘腔和偏爱“最恶劣的罪行”鸡奸而臭名昭著。船夫明白那个女人的意思,他就照她说的做了。他跟踪这两个人,直到他们进入一间办公室,一间厕所。当他们在一起窃窃私语时,他暗中监视着他们,并“以一种非常可笑的方式交谈”。很快,“他确信他们是所多玛人。”他们在里面,门关不上,他从剩下的缝隙里看到“他们在一起。”在刑法中,“buggering”有一个确切的含义:阴茎插入肛门。这是一项严重的罪行,必须判处死刑。但毫无疑问,他“亲眼看到了他们”。船夫并不仅仅满足于目测。他伸手去调查,却发现两人“靠得太近了,他无法把手放在他们中间”。他只是“好不容易”才勉强把它塞进去。他抓住阴茎,把它从对方的肛门里拔出来。(报道将这一行为描述为“亨特的——从别人的——”)在法庭上,船夫讲述了他的发现。那个讨厌的阳具“是湿的,而且弄湿了他的手。”一些法庭和法学家认为,在体内射精的证据是证明这一重罪的必要条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"O My Poor Arse, My Arse Can Best Tell": Surgeons, Ordinary Witnesses, and the Sodomitical Body in Georgian Britain
A r e p o r t p u b l i s h e d i n 1 7 4 3 informed readers about a recent sodomy trial in Kingston upon Thames.1 One night early that summer, a London waterman had received a tip from a woman selling gingerbread that two “mollies” had just sneaked into Pepper Alley, in Southwark. Mollies were members of an underground queer subculture, mostly workingand lower-middle-class men notorious for their effeminacy and predilection for that “worst of crimes,” sodomy. The waterman understood what the woman was suggesting, and he followed the tip. He stalked the two until they entered a house of office, a lavatory. He spied on them as they whispered together and “talk’d in a very ludicrous manner.” Soon, “he was very well assured, they were Sodomites.” The door could not shut fully with them inside, and through the gap that remained he saw that “they were b——g one another.” In the criminal law, “buggering” had a precise meaning: phallic penetration of the anus. It was a grievous offense, carrying a mandatory capital penalty. But there was no doubt: he “saw them in the very Fact.” The waterman was not satisfied merely with visual inspection. He went to investigate manually but found that the two “were so close that he could not put his Hand between them.” Only “with Difficulty” did he force it in. He grasped the penis and drew it from the other’s anus. (The report renders this action as taking “Hunt’s —— out of the other’s ——.”) In court, the waterman told what he had found. The offending phallus “was wet, and wet his Hand very much.” Some courts and jurists believed that evidence of ejaculation inside the body was necessary to prove this felony.
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
自引率
16.70%
发文量
15
×
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