Alleging Fear: The Proof and Politics of Marital Violence Cases in 18th-Century New England

This paper analyzes the rhetoric of emotion contained in breach of peace complaints brought by white married women against their husbands in eighteenth-century New England. Abused women averring their “fear” and even “terror” of their husbands might seem unremarkable; complainants in non-domestic assault cases similarly alleged “fear” or “being affrighted.” In fact, the pleading rules required complainants to allege fear in these types of cases. For these reasons, the language of emotion has been viewed as little more than boilerplate, a rote recitation of words necessary to activate legal process.

Yet these words about emotion are worthy of greater attention, for three main reasons. First, wives described their fear differently than other victims of abuse. Analytic frameworks from the history of emotions can help us understand why and how they did so, and why it matters. Second, court records suggest that unlike most breach of peace complainants, wives had to objectively prove their emotional experience of fear, not just claim it. What did it mean to prove they were afraid? And how did they do so? Evidence for emotion was highly specific to contemporary understandings of the marital relationship.

Third, and very much related to the second point, eighteenth-century New Englanders did not perceive any place for wifely fear in a good marriage. A wife’s fear was evidence of her husband’s misgovernment, his failure to function appropriately as head of his household. When viewed this way, it is easy to see how these “domestic” violence cases had inherent public and political implications. In fact, there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that both marriage and marital violence were viewed as public (meaning relevant to a broad swath of the community) and political (meaning having significance to how power relationships were organized and exercised).