Examples Of Authenticity Essay
Authenticity Essay During the 16th and early 17th Century there were few detailed accounts of commoners’ lives in London, England leaving a gap in historical records. Such a gap was not just about the commoners, but the perspectives of the entire society, cultural norms of that era, and even business. However, the insight into London during the late 17th century through the 18th Century came from the criminal literature like the “criminal biographies, last dying speeches, Newsgate accounts and trial accounts” from Old Bailey (Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker, “Publishing History”). This provided the most insightful information into the Old Bailey Session House proceedings, due to the trials being documented by reporters writing to inform the
…show more content…
public who came to find criminal literature interesting in view of the growing concern for crime (Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker, “Publishing History”). One of The Old Bailey proceedings, the Benjamin Jones Trial, is an excellent example of a more accurate portrayal of the people. This trial account is a true representation of the townspeople during the 18th century within the criminal courts versus personal letters or diaries due to their authenticity and lack of first person bias. Subsequently, the Old Bailey Session House papers, which are the accounts of the proceedings that were used to inform the public of what transpired in the criminal courts, were wide read by people in all levels of status in London. In order to make these papers available to the commoners, publishers wrote them as chap-books, broadsides and ballads that were at one point 4 to 7 pages in length (early in the proceedings publications) and expanded to over 20 pages starting in 1729 (Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker, “Publishing History”). Costs were kept low so the public could afford to purchase them making these writings even more popular for the public for the simple fact, the accessibility to the news inside the criminal courts. To illustrate the insight that these Old Bailey proceedings provided into the 18th century it is necessary to take a look at one of these trials in depth. One of note is the trial of Benjamin Jones labeled in the proceedings as Benjamin Jones, Sexual Offences > rape, 16th January 1755 (Old Bailey Online). In this trial, Benjamin Jones is being accused of raping a widow and owner of a public house, Sarah Robertson. The trial is written in third person from an observant account retelling what each person said during the trial which paints a clear picture of the court room proceedings. First, the writer uses a casual diction in approaching the speech of the witness and the others that testify, for example, the writer quotes Robertson, “I had drank one glass of wine before, and so had he; we had but one pint of wine in all” (Old Bailey Online). This quote is from the trial account based on Sarah Robertson’s testimony to the court about Benjamin Jones drinking with her. The diction is clear, but not formal making it very prosaic. Such a plain diction adds to the objective view the writer has taken for the entirety of this piece for the trial account. Furthermore, this diction helps to demonstrate the personality of the speaker allowing it to resonate from the text making it feel honest and genuine. Sarah Robertson’s pleading tone resounds from the text when it reads, “I begged and prayed as much as possible. … and cried sadly, for my cloaths were torn from off my back” (Old Bailey Online). When a writer can capture this emotion in such simple diction it seems quite authentic to the reader. What is more, this writer not only captured the prosecutrix’s personality, emotion and voice, but others’ such as the court’s, as well. In this trial, the questioner continues to ask the prosecutrix to repeat intimate details and her statements over and over thus making it seem as if the court cannot trust a woman’s testimony. Even the Council for the defense interceded to argue with Robertson’s consistent details of her story, for example, “Council. I can't conceive how there could be any possibility of his penetrating your body” (Old Bailey Online). The council’s diction shows the utmost suspicion and disregard of the witness’s testimony of rape at the beginning of the cross examination. Later in the cross examination the Council directs her to look at a piece of paper during questioning and Robertson subjects to this by answering that it is her handwriting.
Throughout this trial, there is a distinct tone of inferiority in terms of women and their status despite their job. This Superiority complex seems ingrained into the society where no one, not even council for the prosecutrix (if there is any) cares to point out the treatment or excessive questioning of the victim. Here, women are considered to be emotional, unsure and unreliable as witnesses in the trial. What is interesting is that, during the 18th century, the courtroom was male dominated from the Judge, jury, lawyers all the way through the court officials and there is some evidence that testimonies from women were considered with great skepticism from the juries (Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker, “Historical Background - Gender in Proceedings). Within this trial account, the writer is able to show and project the treatment of women on the stand in a trial and how the court responded to this. A reflection of women’s lower status and inferior treatment adds to the authenticity of this piece of writing giving more insight to 18th century London’s society.
Also, what helps reinforce the authenticity of the Old Bailey proceeding is not only the representations of the court and the accuser, but that of the accused.
Benjamin Jones’ testimony, witness and defense are significantly shorter and deemed almost as fact in terms of the trial account. An example is the line in the trial account that reads, “All that she has said of this ill usage, is a contrivance of Hunt's and her's, to make a property of me” (Old Bailey Online). The court does not seem to even cross-examine or question the alleged rapist’s testimony and the writer uses only a handful of paragraphs to express the prisoner’s firm voice and defense with a couple more paragraphs. This lack of defense makes the trial account seem unevenly balanced yet within these paragraphs the jury manages to acquit Jones on all accounts. Although the writer holds an objective view, the main reasoning for not elaborating on the defense alludes to the idea that the defense was shorter and in that small amount of time and evidence proved to the courts satisfactory that he was innocent or, at least, that the woman was lying about her consent. The view that a white man of property, that is married with children can be taken at his word alone, while a woman in the 18th century was not considered trustworthy. Men’s status was considered at a higher station than a woman’s and reading this through the trial account solidifies the writings
authenticity.
However, while this piece seems quite authentic in terms of prosaic, clear diction and .precise objective tones there are parts that seem forced and shaped to appeal. The order of the cross-examination questions seems to be for more of an effect versus a completely true order in terms of dissecting Robertson’s testimony. The absence of the majority of the defense’s witness testimonies also seems as if to add to the suspense of the ruling of the trial where Jones was acquitted. Some of the parts that seemed forced were any portion dealing with Hunt’s marital status which was not made as clear in the trial accounts as they could have been. For instance in this exchange in court: “[Questioner] Is Mr. Hunt a married man? [Sarah] Robertson. Upon my oath I don't know the he is; he always denies it to me” the prosecutrix denies Hunt being a married man (Old Bailey Online). When Hunt is questioned the writer states, “On his cross examination, he said he was a married man, that his wife was then near him in court, that he had two children by her, and that he, notwithstanding that, had made a contract with the prosecutrix to marry her “ (Old Bailey Online). Hunt’s statement opposing Robertson’s sounded forced and theatrical as if the trial was arranged for the best effect. Although, unlike personal diaries and letters from the 18th century that took a more elaborate and personally biased stance on the accounts, the trial accounts still hold to be authentic. This was an important attraction for readers in criminal literature because compared to other accounts and manuscripts they held the same set of information and accounts from the trials.
As a final point, the Old Bailey proceedings gave insight into the society and culture of London in the 18th century by providing a reflection through authentic trial accounts. These authentic trial accounts became used as a legal record for the trials at Old Bailey and formed a basis of City Recorder reports to the King so that pardons could be determined (Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker, “The Proceedings - The Value Of the Proceedings as a Historical Source). This criminal literature became popular due to this authenticity, availability and affordability. A new emerging market was created in the news while providing perspective on inside views of men’s status and superiority, women’s inferior treatment and in-depth views of the criminal courts in the 18th century.
public who came to find criminal literature interesting in view of the growing concern for crime (Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker, “Publishing History”). One of The Old Bailey proceedings, the Benjamin Jones Trial, is an excellent example of a more accurate portrayal of the people. This trial account is a true representation of the townspeople during the 18th century within the criminal courts versus personal letters or diaries due to their authenticity and lack of first person bias. Subsequently, the Old Bailey Session House papers, which are the accounts of the proceedings that were used to inform the public of what transpired in the criminal courts, were wide read by people in all levels of status in London. In order to make these papers available to the commoners, publishers wrote them as chap-books, broadsides and ballads that were at one point 4 to 7 pages in length (early in the proceedings publications) and expanded to over 20 pages starting in 1729 (Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker, “Publishing History”). Costs were kept low so the public could afford to purchase them making these writings even more popular for the public for the simple fact, the accessibility to the news inside the criminal courts. To illustrate the insight that these Old Bailey proceedings provided into the 18th century it is necessary to take a look at one of these trials in depth. One of note is the trial of Benjamin Jones labeled in the proceedings as Benjamin Jones, Sexual Offences > rape, 16th January 1755 (Old Bailey Online). In this trial, Benjamin Jones is being accused of raping a widow and owner of a public house, Sarah Robertson. The trial is written in third person from an observant account retelling what each person said during the trial which paints a clear picture of the court room proceedings. First, the writer uses a casual diction in approaching the speech of the witness and the others that testify, for example, the writer quotes Robertson, “I had drank one glass of wine before, and so had he; we had but one pint of wine in all” (Old Bailey Online). This quote is from the trial account based on Sarah Robertson’s testimony to the court about Benjamin Jones drinking with her. The diction is clear, but not formal making it very prosaic. Such a plain diction adds to the objective view the writer has taken for the entirety of this piece for the trial account. Furthermore, this diction helps to demonstrate the personality of the speaker allowing it to resonate from the text making it feel honest and genuine. Sarah Robertson’s pleading tone resounds from the text when it reads, “I begged and prayed as much as possible. … and cried sadly, for my cloaths were torn from off my back” (Old Bailey Online). When a writer can capture this emotion in such simple diction it seems quite authentic to the reader. What is more, this writer not only captured the prosecutrix’s personality, emotion and voice, but others’ such as the court’s, as well. In this trial, the questioner continues to ask the prosecutrix to repeat intimate details and her statements over and over thus making it seem as if the court cannot trust a woman’s testimony. Even the Council for the defense interceded to argue with Robertson’s consistent details of her story, for example, “Council. I can't conceive how there could be any possibility of his penetrating your body” (Old Bailey Online). The council’s diction shows the utmost suspicion and disregard of the witness’s testimony of rape at the beginning of the cross examination. Later in the cross examination the Council directs her to look at a piece of paper during questioning and Robertson subjects to this by answering that it is her handwriting.
Throughout this trial, there is a distinct tone of inferiority in terms of women and their status despite their job. This Superiority complex seems ingrained into the society where no one, not even council for the prosecutrix (if there is any) cares to point out the treatment or excessive questioning of the victim. Here, women are considered to be emotional, unsure and unreliable as witnesses in the trial. What is interesting is that, during the 18th century, the courtroom was male dominated from the Judge, jury, lawyers all the way through the court officials and there is some evidence that testimonies from women were considered with great skepticism from the juries (Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker, “Historical Background - Gender in Proceedings). Within this trial account, the writer is able to show and project the treatment of women on the stand in a trial and how the court responded to this. A reflection of women’s lower status and inferior treatment adds to the authenticity of this piece of writing giving more insight to 18th century London’s society.
Also, what helps reinforce the authenticity of the Old Bailey proceeding is not only the representations of the court and the accuser, but that of the accused.
Benjamin Jones’ testimony, witness and defense are significantly shorter and deemed almost as fact in terms of the trial account. An example is the line in the trial account that reads, “All that she has said of this ill usage, is a contrivance of Hunt's and her's, to make a property of me” (Old Bailey Online). The court does not seem to even cross-examine or question the alleged rapist’s testimony and the writer uses only a handful of paragraphs to express the prisoner’s firm voice and defense with a couple more paragraphs. This lack of defense makes the trial account seem unevenly balanced yet within these paragraphs the jury manages to acquit Jones on all accounts. Although the writer holds an objective view, the main reasoning for not elaborating on the defense alludes to the idea that the defense was shorter and in that small amount of time and evidence proved to the courts satisfactory that he was innocent or, at least, that the woman was lying about her consent. The view that a white man of property, that is married with children can be taken at his word alone, while a woman in the 18th century was not considered trustworthy. Men’s status was considered at a higher station than a woman’s and reading this through the trial account solidifies the writings
authenticity.
However, while this piece seems quite authentic in terms of prosaic, clear diction and .precise objective tones there are parts that seem forced and shaped to appeal. The order of the cross-examination questions seems to be for more of an effect versus a completely true order in terms of dissecting Robertson’s testimony. The absence of the majority of the defense’s witness testimonies also seems as if to add to the suspense of the ruling of the trial where Jones was acquitted. Some of the parts that seemed forced were any portion dealing with Hunt’s marital status which was not made as clear in the trial accounts as they could have been. For instance in this exchange in court: “[Questioner] Is Mr. Hunt a married man? [Sarah] Robertson. Upon my oath I don't know the he is; he always denies it to me” the prosecutrix denies Hunt being a married man (Old Bailey Online). When Hunt is questioned the writer states, “On his cross examination, he said he was a married man, that his wife was then near him in court, that he had two children by her, and that he, notwithstanding that, had made a contract with the prosecutrix to marry her “ (Old Bailey Online). Hunt’s statement opposing Robertson’s sounded forced and theatrical as if the trial was arranged for the best effect. Although, unlike personal diaries and letters from the 18th century that took a more elaborate and personally biased stance on the accounts, the trial accounts still hold to be authentic. This was an important attraction for readers in criminal literature because compared to other accounts and manuscripts they held the same set of information and accounts from the trials.
As a final point, the Old Bailey proceedings gave insight into the society and culture of London in the 18th century by providing a reflection through authentic trial accounts. These authentic trial accounts became used as a legal record for the trials at Old Bailey and formed a basis of City Recorder reports to the King so that pardons could be determined (Emsley, Hitchcock and Shoemaker, “The Proceedings - The Value Of the Proceedings as a Historical Source). This criminal literature became popular due to this authenticity, availability and affordability. A new emerging market was created in the news while providing perspective on inside views of men’s status and superiority, women’s inferior treatment and in-depth views of the criminal courts in the 18th century.