TW: Rape, sexual assault
On a Sunday evening in mid April, 1728, Margaret Watt, a young Aberdeenshire woman, was walking to the town of Kintore when she was assaulted and raped by John Brown. We know this because she reported it the following week to the local Kirk Session in Kintore.* The minister asked her why she was reporting the incident to which she replied that she wished to ‘gain satisfaction’ from Brown for his assault, who she alleged had ‘waylaid her and fastened upon her with both his hands … in the hill above Ratchhill, after sun sett (sic) threw her to the ground and lay with her and abused her’. She further ‘confessed that she was guilty of uncleanness with him and was willing to submit to disciplines and give satisfaction.’ ‘Uncleanness’ is a euphemistic term used in the Session minutes to describe sex outside marriage and was very common despite what moralists would have us believe about sex throughout history. On questioning by the minister as to whether Brown had made such attempts previously and she said he had not. She was told to come to the Session the following week and in the meantime the minister would write to the minister of the neighbouring parish of Kinkell, where Brown resided, to ask that her attacker be informed he was required to appear at the same Session.
There are a couple of questions about the above passage to address before moving on with the story. In the first place, as the minister asked, why had Margaret reported her ordeal, and secondly, in doing so why had she claimed guilt for the sexual act that ensued**? I am no expert on Scottish history but I would guess that she feared being pregnant and if that was the case she would be hauled before the Session in due course when her condition became public knowledge. Better to get her story told early in the hope that at least her assailant would be held accountable and it could be known she was not a willing participant. Yet she did not expect to be free of guilt in the eyes of the church which saw her as sinful for her part in the assault despite not wishing it to happen. She, therefore confessed her sin and accepted that she, too, had to ‘give satisfaction’ to church discipline.
John Brown did appear at the Kirk Session the following week, along with Margaret. She was asked to confirm her story which was read out before the session members and her accused assailant, all men. Brown was then asked if the story was true which he initially denied strongly and, after warnings of divine retribution if he was lying, he admitted having sex with Margaret but continued to deny any force was used.
And this appears to conclude the examination of the case. His story seems to be the one that is believed and both parties are told to appear before the congregation to repent and ask forgiveness for the sins committed. There is also a monetary penalty to be paid by both. In other cases of premarital sex that I have found in the Session minutes the guilty couple can be asked to appear together. In this case Margaret appeared for the first three consecutive weeks before being absolved of her guilt while John Brown was then asked to appear for his penance, again over a three week period. It is unclear whether this was because there was an accusation of rape but it is not mentioned and there are no further recorded consequences for Brown. Given that Margaret had to publicly confess her sin it is unlikely that the church was sensitive to the issue of keeping her and her attacker apart.
Did Margaret feel she had ‘gained satisfaction’ from confessing the attack to the church? It seems unlikely. Margaret was, in the eyes of the church and possibly the parishioners at large, at least equally guilty and, as her allegation of rape appears to be dismissed on the partial confession of Brown, who claimed it was consensual, perhaps more so. Three hundred years later, women still bear the burden of judgement for the assaults and unwanted sexual advances of men. *sigh* How glacially change moves in some aspects of life.
The above story is available on scotlandspeople.gov.uk in the Kirk Sessions for Kintore and can be viewed here https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/virtual-volumes/volume-images/volume_data-CH2-223-1/GAZ00713?image_number=101
Neither Margaret Watt not John Brown are my ancestors as far as I am aware.
*Kirk Sessions were committees which comprised the minister and appointed elders of a parish church. They served the function of church courts in the Church of Scotland from the mid 16th century, dealing with breaches of church discipline, often about sex but also about drunkenness, rowdy behaviour, non attendance etc. They also had responsibilities for poor relief and education within the parish.
**To be clear, I do not consider rape to be a ‘sexual act’ but is an act of violence. However, in this case the church viewed the assault as an unsanctioned sexual act taken by both people and therefore I will refer to it as such.
Significantly Different 