公元1200-1500年中世纪普通法中的妇女

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW Law and Humanities Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/17521483.2022.2096295
Rebecca Mason
{"title":"公元1200-1500年中世纪普通法中的妇女","authors":"Rebecca Mason","doi":"10.1080/17521483.2022.2096295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contradictions swirl around the existing scholarship devoted to the study of women and the law in medieval England. Some scholars stress women’s limited legal status in the medieval common law, with particular focus on the debilitating effects of the common law doctrine of coverture, which stripped women of their independent legal status on marriage. Others point to evidence of medieval women negotiating the boundaries of patriarchal legal structures in jurisdictions that did not necessarily follow common law, with courts that practiced equity, ecclesiastical and customary law allowing women to sue or be sued, regardless of their marital status. InWomen in the Medieval Common Law, c. 1200-1500, Gwen Seabourne takes a rather different view. Instead of focusing on definitive or authoritative statements on the legal position of women in the medieval common law, or uncovering exceptional women rebelling against the constraints imposed upon them by common law, Seabourne suggests that we should take a more measured approach and meet somewhere in the middle. In her new book, Seabourne argues that medieval lawyers and legal thinkers did not necessarily think of women’s legal actions based on definitive and authoritative statements of fixed rules, even in common law jurisdictions. When we consider the inherent complexities of common law thinking in medieval England, a more nuanced picture of women in the medieval common law emerges. This book addresses a major lacunae in present research by complicating our understanding of the treatment of women in the medieval common law in England and, in particular, the complex roots of the common law doctrine of coverture. In her introduction, Seabourne explains how she carefully gathered scattered statements about the treatment and position of women in common law sources including statutes and other legislative acts, records of the courts of common law, law reports and legal writings in order to stitch together a more nuanced, complete picture that challenges long-standing assumptions of","PeriodicalId":42313,"journal":{"name":"Law and Humanities","volume":"16 1","pages":"145 - 148"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Women in the Medieval Common Law c. 1200-1500\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Mason\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17521483.2022.2096295\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Contradictions swirl around the existing scholarship devoted to the study of women and the law in medieval England. Some scholars stress women’s limited legal status in the medieval common law, with particular focus on the debilitating effects of the common law doctrine of coverture, which stripped women of their independent legal status on marriage. Others point to evidence of medieval women negotiating the boundaries of patriarchal legal structures in jurisdictions that did not necessarily follow common law, with courts that practiced equity, ecclesiastical and customary law allowing women to sue or be sued, regardless of their marital status. InWomen in the Medieval Common Law, c. 1200-1500, Gwen Seabourne takes a rather different view. Instead of focusing on definitive or authoritative statements on the legal position of women in the medieval common law, or uncovering exceptional women rebelling against the constraints imposed upon them by common law, Seabourne suggests that we should take a more measured approach and meet somewhere in the middle. In her new book, Seabourne argues that medieval lawyers and legal thinkers did not necessarily think of women’s legal actions based on definitive and authoritative statements of fixed rules, even in common law jurisdictions. When we consider the inherent complexities of common law thinking in medieval England, a more nuanced picture of women in the medieval common law emerges. This book addresses a major lacunae in present research by complicating our understanding of the treatment of women in the medieval common law in England and, in particular, the complex roots of the common law doctrine of coverture. In her introduction, Seabourne explains how she carefully gathered scattered statements about the treatment and position of women in common law sources including statutes and other legislative acts, records of the courts of common law, law reports and legal writings in order to stitch together a more nuanced, complete picture that challenges long-standing assumptions of\",\"PeriodicalId\":42313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Humanities\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"145 - 148\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17521483.2022.2096295\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17521483.2022.2096295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

围绕着现有的专门研究中世纪英格兰妇女和法律的学术,矛盾不断。一些学者强调女性在中世纪普通法中的有限法律地位,特别关注普通法中掩盖主义的削弱作用,该学说剥夺了女性在婚姻中的独立法律地位。其他人则指出,有证据表明,中世纪女性在不一定遵循普通法的司法管辖区就父权制法律结构的界限进行谈判,实践衡平法、教会法和习惯法的法院允许女性起诉或被起诉,无论其婚姻状况如何。在《中世纪普通法中的女性》(约1200-1500年)一书中,格温·西伯恩(Gwen Seabourne)持截然不同的观点。Seabourne建议我们应该采取更谨慎的方法,在在中间会面,而不是专注于对中世纪普通法中女性法律地位的权威性或权威性陈述,或揭露反抗普通法对她们施加的限制的特殊女性。Seabourne在她的新书中认为,中世纪的律师和法律思想家不一定认为女性的法律行为是基于对固定规则的明确和权威的陈述,即使在普通法管辖区也是如此。当我们考虑到中世纪英格兰普通法思维的内在复杂性时,中世纪普通法中女性的形象会更加微妙。这本书通过使我们对中世纪英国普通法中女性待遇的理解复杂化,特别是对普通法保护主义的复杂根源的理解,解决了当前研究中的一个主要缺陷。Seabourne在她的介绍中解释了她是如何在普通法来源中仔细收集关于女性待遇和地位的零散陈述的,包括法规和其他立法法案、普通法法院记录、法律报告和法律著作,以便拼凑出一幅更微妙、更完整的画面,挑战长期以来对
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Women in the Medieval Common Law c. 1200-1500
Contradictions swirl around the existing scholarship devoted to the study of women and the law in medieval England. Some scholars stress women’s limited legal status in the medieval common law, with particular focus on the debilitating effects of the common law doctrine of coverture, which stripped women of their independent legal status on marriage. Others point to evidence of medieval women negotiating the boundaries of patriarchal legal structures in jurisdictions that did not necessarily follow common law, with courts that practiced equity, ecclesiastical and customary law allowing women to sue or be sued, regardless of their marital status. InWomen in the Medieval Common Law, c. 1200-1500, Gwen Seabourne takes a rather different view. Instead of focusing on definitive or authoritative statements on the legal position of women in the medieval common law, or uncovering exceptional women rebelling against the constraints imposed upon them by common law, Seabourne suggests that we should take a more measured approach and meet somewhere in the middle. In her new book, Seabourne argues that medieval lawyers and legal thinkers did not necessarily think of women’s legal actions based on definitive and authoritative statements of fixed rules, even in common law jurisdictions. When we consider the inherent complexities of common law thinking in medieval England, a more nuanced picture of women in the medieval common law emerges. This book addresses a major lacunae in present research by complicating our understanding of the treatment of women in the medieval common law in England and, in particular, the complex roots of the common law doctrine of coverture. In her introduction, Seabourne explains how she carefully gathered scattered statements about the treatment and position of women in common law sources including statutes and other legislative acts, records of the courts of common law, law reports and legal writings in order to stitch together a more nuanced, complete picture that challenges long-standing assumptions of
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Law and Humanities is a peer-reviewed journal, providing a forum for scholarly discourse within the arts and humanities around the subject of law. For this purpose, the arts and humanities disciplines are taken to include literature, history (including history of art), philosophy, theology, classics and the whole spectrum of performance and representational arts. The remit of the journal does not extend to consideration of the laws that regulate practical aspects of the arts and humanities (such as the law of intellectual property). Law and Humanities is principally concerned to engage with those aspects of human experience which are not empirically quantifiable or scientifically predictable. Each issue will carry four or five major articles of between 8,000 and 12,000 words each. The journal will also carry shorter papers (up to 4,000 words) sharing good practice in law and humanities education; reports of conferences; reviews of books, exhibitions, plays, concerts and other artistic publications.
期刊最新文献
Exploring authorship and ownership of plays at the time of William Shakespeare’s First Folio Shakespeare and the theatre of early modern law Performing a constitution: a history of Magna Carta in Shakespeare’s King John Programming utopia: artificial intelligence, judgement, and the prospect of jurisgenesis Roman law and Latin literature
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1