Fermented liquors: Shelley's second rule
While Shelley is most known for his refusal of meat, in "Vindication," Shelley requests something else of the people--drinking only purified water. Looking at an article by Dana Rabin, it becomes clear why consuming "fermented liquors" was a hot topic in his argument for diet.
Drunkenness and Responsibility for crime in the eighteenth century
English representations of the relationship between alcohol and crime shifted between the late seventeenth century and the middle of the eighteenth century. Drunkenness, described by Richard Younge in 1664 as “a sin which turns a man wholly to sin,”1 was presented by writers of crime pamphlets as one of a series of vices forming a “chain of sin” that would lead a person from a lesser infraction such as swearing or Sabbath breaking to fighting, theft, and the most heinous of crimes, murder. Throughout this literature, authors stressed the threat to the social order posed by such sin and the equal menace presented by the drunkenness of the rich and the poor.
Although this portrayal of drunkenness persisted into the eighteenth century, some commentators began to present another opinion of drunkenness. Drunkenness among the wealthy was often described as a private vice, while drunkenness and addiction to alcohol among the laboring poor were said to pose “political mischiefs” that increased crime and threatened to break down gender roles and the structure of the family. The rise of this new discourse about alcohol did not displace older explanations for crime, but it did affect definitions of responsibility.2 This article examines this shift and its influence in the criminal trial.
Eighteenth‐century society struggled with the relationship between intoxication and responsibility. Commentators seemed to agree that drunkenness could change a person’s nature and result in errant behavior. While many expressed tolerant attitudes toward such infractions, they also agreed with legal commentators, among them Edward Coke (1552–1634), Matthew Hale (1609–76), and William Blackstone (1723–80), that if a crime were committed in such a state, the person ought to be held accountable.3 This delicate balance led some, most prominently John Locke (1632–1704), to treat the law as an epistemological system independent of the culture that produced it and the people who moved though it. This careful separation did not hold up in court: defendants took the initiative to argue for mitigation or even acquittal based on pleas of drunkenness.4
The excuse of drunkenness, although not new to the eighteenth century, saw a distinct elaboration by midcentury. Pretrial examinations and courtroom testimony alike reveal the efforts of defendants to fashion pleas of diminished responsibility based on popular perceptions of mental distress. Admitting the act but denying responsibility for it as a crime, defendants, witnesses, and even victims, judges, and jurors spoke a “language of the mind” to refer to psychological and social pressures that interfered with moral judgment and self‐restraint.5
English judges and jurors may have identified with the mental excuses, especially the plea of drunkenness. With the harsh punishments of the “bloody code” ever present in the deliberation process, legal authorities may have welcomed intoxication as grounds for mitigation.6 However, concerns about unpredictable mitigation and stereotypes about the inability of the poor to control their emotions and behavior made the results of such pleas unpredictable
Courtesy of JSTOR
Rabin, Dana. "Drunkenness and Responsibility for Crime in the Eighteenth Century." Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 44, 2005. PDF.
Although this portrayal of drunkenness persisted into the eighteenth century, some commentators began to present another opinion of drunkenness. Drunkenness among the wealthy was often described as a private vice, while drunkenness and addiction to alcohol among the laboring poor were said to pose “political mischiefs” that increased crime and threatened to break down gender roles and the structure of the family. The rise of this new discourse about alcohol did not displace older explanations for crime, but it did affect definitions of responsibility.2 This article examines this shift and its influence in the criminal trial.
Eighteenth‐century society struggled with the relationship between intoxication and responsibility. Commentators seemed to agree that drunkenness could change a person’s nature and result in errant behavior. While many expressed tolerant attitudes toward such infractions, they also agreed with legal commentators, among them Edward Coke (1552–1634), Matthew Hale (1609–76), and William Blackstone (1723–80), that if a crime were committed in such a state, the person ought to be held accountable.3 This delicate balance led some, most prominently John Locke (1632–1704), to treat the law as an epistemological system independent of the culture that produced it and the people who moved though it. This careful separation did not hold up in court: defendants took the initiative to argue for mitigation or even acquittal based on pleas of drunkenness.4
The excuse of drunkenness, although not new to the eighteenth century, saw a distinct elaboration by midcentury. Pretrial examinations and courtroom testimony alike reveal the efforts of defendants to fashion pleas of diminished responsibility based on popular perceptions of mental distress. Admitting the act but denying responsibility for it as a crime, defendants, witnesses, and even victims, judges, and jurors spoke a “language of the mind” to refer to psychological and social pressures that interfered with moral judgment and self‐restraint.5
English judges and jurors may have identified with the mental excuses, especially the plea of drunkenness. With the harsh punishments of the “bloody code” ever present in the deliberation process, legal authorities may have welcomed intoxication as grounds for mitigation.6 However, concerns about unpredictable mitigation and stereotypes about the inability of the poor to control their emotions and behavior made the results of such pleas unpredictable
Courtesy of JSTOR
Rabin, Dana. "Drunkenness and Responsibility for Crime in the Eighteenth Century." Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 44, 2005. PDF.