Writing a history of rape law in early modern England is no simple feat. Arguably the most sustained and consistent grievance with English rape law is that it did not adequately define ‘rape’ or explain what was necessary to prove it, a conundrum exacerbated by the fact that legal authorities commonly conflated the crime of rape with the quasi-crime of ravishment. This conflation has made it exceedingly difficult to separate one from the other and thus to interpret the law of rape in and of itself. Further, the period was one of significant social and economic change that affected the legal system. Despite these hindrances, an analysis of English rape law in the early modern period is both possible and important. Lawmakers, legal authorities, judges, jurors, defendants and complainants did not exist in a vacuum, but lived in a culture in which they were both producers and consumers. A historical analysis of rape law in early modern England reveals a legal culture that tolerated inordinate levels of male violence against women, even from men they did not know. The doctrines and criteria that constituted the common law of rape created extraordinary standards that, when coupled with popular attitudes towards women, made conviction for rape exceptionally difficult.

When a woman accused a man of rape, she asserted that he had broken a law, but locating that law was complicated.