What error drives our eyes and ears amiss?
The Comedy of Errors 2.2.184
Abstract
This paper reflects on the experience of presenting a limit test case based on passion/provocation cases against a proposed ‘right to passions’ suggested by proponents of a sentimental jurisprudence. The limit case, presented at the 2010 CLC held in Utrecht, invited the audience to reflect on the human (read: male) right to a provocation defence, a right enshrined in the criminal law as a concession to ‘human frailty’ in ‘crimes of passion’ for centuries.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Of course, criminal courts also struggle to see her act as an eminently rational one of self-defence.
See Wiegman’s (2006) ruminations on the failure of the ‘originating intentions’ of a paper written for a conference on heteronormativity.
As I argued in Howe (2000).
See Howe (2010) for an account of previous attempts to do so.
If you look hard you can even spot the occasional feminist contribution on ‘law’s (masculine) violence’, albeit with its masculinity modestly bracketed away (Hunter 2006).
According to Dabhoiwala, eighteenth-century commentators were well aware of a sexual double standard that ensured that the passions were unevenly, indeed unjustly distributed between men and women, and between different social classes. As Bishop Burnet put it, ‘men have a property in their Wives and Daughters, so that to defile the one, or corrupt the other, is an injust (sic) and injurious thing’ (cited in Dabhoiwala 2010, p. 152).
AG for Jersey v Holley [2005] 2 AC 580 at 588 and 598.
Lord Morley (1666) 6 St Tr 770 at 780.
R v Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932.
Ibid at 933. See Edwards (2009) for a more detailed examination of Duffy.
R v Mawgridge (1707) Kel J 119 at 137.
[1946] AC 588 at 597-8.
Examples of some of the more egregious cases are Attorney General’s Reference No 742002 EWCA Crim 2982 and R v Rowland [2003] EWCA Crim 3636.
I thank Kerri Woods, teaching fellow in political philosophy, University of York, for permission to quote her comment.
Heinze (2009 p. 256) argues that the blindness of patriarchal males, their inability to ‘see what is right before their eyes, inducing them to lay their “errors” at the feet of their subordinates, recurs in Shakespeare’. See also Parker’s (1996, p 77; her emphasis) close reading of the disjunction of discourses within the play that obfuscates the meaning of repeated biblical references, in particular the ‘familiar hierarchical assimilation of master to Master, spouse to Spouse, a structure on which not only Elizabethan homiletics but modern critical ones depend’.
References
Ancel, Marc. 1957. Le crime passionel. The Law Quarterly Review 73: 36–47.
Asquith, Clare. 2005. Shadowplay: The hidden beliefs and coded politics of William Shakespeare. New York: Public Affairs.
Barreto, José-Manuel. 2006. Ethics of emotions as ethics of human rights: A jurisprudence of sympathy in Adorno, Horskheimer and Rorty. Law and Critique 17: 73–106.
Barreto, José-Manuel. 2011. Rorty and human rights—Contingency, emotions and how to defend human rights telling stories. Utrecht Law Review 7(2): 93–112.
Bray, A. 2009. Governing the gaze: Child sexual abuse moral panics and the post-feminist blindspot. Feminist Media Studies 9(2): 173–191.
Christodoulidis, Emilios. 2009. Strategies of rupture. Law and Critique 20: 3–26.
Dabhoiwala, Faramerz. 2010. Lust and liberty. Past and Present 207: 89–179.
Edwards, Susan. 2009. Justice Devlin’s legacy: A battered woman ‘caught’ in time. Criminal Law Review 12: 851–869.
Goodrich, Peter. 1999. The critic’s love of the law: Intimate observations on an insular jurisdiction. Law and Critique 10(3): 343–360.
Heaton, Russell. 2001. Anything goes: R v Smith (Morgan). Nottingham Law Journal 10: 50–56.
Heinze, Eric. 2009. ‘Were it not against our laws’: Oppression and resistance in Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors. Legal Studies 29(2): 230–263.
Howe, Adrian. 2000. Homosexual advances in law: Murderous excuse, pluralised ignorance and the privilege of unknowing. In Sexuality in the legal arena, ed. D. Herman, and C. Stychin. London: Athlone.
Howe, Adrian. 2002. Provoking polemic: Provoked killings and the ethical paradoxes of the postmodern feminist condition. Feminist Legal Studies 10: 39–64.
Howe, Adrian. 2004. Provocation in crisis—Law’s passion at the crossroads? Australian Feminist Law Journal 21: 55–77.
Howe, Adrian. 2008a. Sex, violence and crime: Foucault and the ‘man’ question. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge-Cavendish.
Howe, Adrian. 2008b. ‘Yes, minister, sex violence has failed’—It’s time for sex, violence and crime in a postmodern frame. In Sex as crime, ed. G. Letherby, P. Birch, K. Williams, and M. Cain. Collumpton, Devon: Willan Publishers.
Howe, Adrian. 2010. Every time you said ‘penis’: Men’s violence, victim advocacy and impermissible speech. Australian Feminist Studies 25(64): 209–222.
Hunter, Rosemary. 2006. Law’s (masculine) violence: Reshaping jurisprudence’. Law and Critique 17: 27–46.
Law Commission. 2004. Partial defences to murder. Report no. 290. London: Law Commission.
Law Commission. 2006. Murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Project 6 of the ninth programme of law reform. London: Law Commission.
Leader-Elliot, Ian. 1997. Passion and insurrection in the law of sexual provocation. In Sexing the subject of law, ed. N. Naffine, and R. Owens. North Ryde, NSW: LBC Information Services.
Leung, Gilbert, and Matthew Stone. 2009. Otherwise than hospitality: A disputation on the relation of ethics to law and politics. Law and Critique 20: 193–206.
Macklem, Timothy, and Gardner, John. 2001. Compassion with respect? Nine fallacies in R v Smith. Criminal Law Review 623–635.
Magnusson, Lynne. 2004. ‘Voice potential’: Language and symbolic capital in Othello. In Shakespeare and language, ed. C.M.S. Alexander. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, Randall. 2005. Introduction. In William Shakespeare: The Comedy of Errors, ed. S. Wells. London: Penguin.
McRobbie, Angela. 2009. The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change. London: Sage.
Minkkinen, Paul. 2008. The expressionless: Law, ethics and the imagery of suffering. Law and Critique 19: 65–85.
Murphy, Tim. 1999. BritCrits: Subversion and submissions, past, present and future. Law and Critique 10(3): 237–278.
Nourse, Victoria. 1997. Passion’s progress: Modern law reform and the provocation defence. Yale Law Journal 106: 1331–1443.
Parker, Patricia. 1996. Shakespeare from the margins: Language, culture, context. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Sedgwick, Eve. 1993. Tendencies. Durham: Duke University Press.
Singer, Joseph William. 2009. Critical normativity. Law and Critique 20: 27–42.
Smith, Adam. 1976. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Adam. 2009. The theory of moral sentiments. New York: Penguin.
Taylor, Laurie. 1986. Provoked reason in men and women: Heat-of-passion manslaughter and imperfect self-defence. UCLS Law Review 33: 1679–1735.
Van Dijk, Jan. 2008. In the shadow of Christ? On the use of the word ‘victim’ for those affected by crime. Criminal Justice Ethics 27: 13–24.
Ward, Ian. 2002. The echo of a sentimental jurisprudence. Law and Critique 13: 106–125.
Wiegman, Robyn. 2006. Heteronormativity and the desire for gender. Feminist Theory 7(1): 89–103.
Wiegman, Robyn. 2010. The intimacy of critique: Ruminations on feminism as a living thing. Feminist Theory 11: 79–84.
Zembylas, Michalinos. 2008. Trauma, justice and the politics of emotion: The violence of sentimentality in education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 29(1): 1–17.
Acknowledgments
Research for this paper was completed during my visiting professorial fellowship at Queen Mary Law School, University of London. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the inspirational work of Eric Heinze, professor of law at Queen Mary. Thanks Eric for your wonderful Law and Shakespeare lectures, your boundless enthusiasm for Shakespearean-inflected critical law scholarship and finally, for so generously sharing your wealth of knowledge in the field. Thanks also to the reviewers for their comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Howe, A. A ‘Right to Passions’? Compassion’s Sexed Asymmetry and a Minor Comedy of Errors . Law Critique 23, 83–102 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-012-9098-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-012-9098-5