The rule of thumb

Talking about “the rule of thumb” in my last post sent me on a link-following trail through the internet, at the end of which I came upon an article that discredits the wife-beating origins of the phrase. As I paged though, my gaze kept sticking on the wording of some legal cases quoted in the document.

State v. Oliver, Oliver had been found guilty of assault and battery and fined $10 for having given five licks to his wife with “two switches, which were about four feet long, with the branches on them, about half way, and some leaves. One of the switches was about half as large as a man’s little finger, the other not so large.”

and

In Fulgham v. State (1871): “Since then, however, learning, with its humanizing influences, has made great progress, and morals and religion have made some progress with it. Therefore, a rod which may be drawn through the wedding ring is not now deemed necessary to teach the wife her duty and subjection to the husband.”

and then,

Emperor Justinian I … gave a husband freedom to “beat his wife with a whip or rod” for divorcable offenses: withholding information from him about a plot against the government, adultery, plotting against his life, remaining away from his house without his consent, attending banquets or bathing with strangers against his wishes, or attending circuses, theaters, or other public exhibitions without his knowledge or against his wishes.

Plotting against the government… going to the theatre… definitely spankable offences, both of them.

I can’t get rid of a squirming worm of guilt for extracting pleasure out of reading these passages, but it doesn’t mean that I’m about to either stop reading them, or stop looking for more of the same kind.

But yeah – the rule of thum? Complete nonsense.