question

[truepenny]

Does anybody know of any real-life cases of blood revenge in the early modern period in England (between, let's say, 1558 and 1642)? That is, is there any evidence to suggest that revenge tragedies had the slightest relevance to Elizabethan and Jacobean social reality?

People make some wild generalizations about what Elizabethans thought and felt, and I just realized I've never seen a shred of primary historical evidence one way or the other.

So I'm asking.

Comments

[poisoninjest.livejournal.com]

Huh. I can't offer a bit of useful information on this, except to echo that I've never seen any historical evidence, either. (Moreover, if I were an Elizabethan/Jacobean who had ever witnessed a revenge tragedy, I'd be scared shitless of trying it out myself. I mean, it never ends well, does it, what with the ghosts and the severed body parts and going insane and occasional eating of one's own children in pies and general messiness? *g*)

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

True. Based on revenge tragedies, the best thing to do if somebody drops dead unexpectedly is to get out of town. Fast.

And then there's the anecdotes (there's a couple in Heywood's Apology for Actors) about the people who go to revenge tragedies and get so terrified that they stand up and confess to murders that everybody'd written off as natural death.

So if anything, the primary evidence suggests that revenge tragedies were (or were viewed as) a deterrent. Hey! Cool!

Blood revenge

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

In a very short word: No.

There are numerous cases I can think of of duels and killings in hot blood (Jonson's hilling of Gabriel whatsisname, Kit and Watson killing Bradley) and a whole bunchamo cases of libel, slander, and instigation. And the odd murder, usually for political reasons.

"Blood revenge"? I presume somebody somewhere killed somebody because he was mad at him. But I think it probably has the same bearing on everyday Elizabethan reality that all those Charles Bronson movies have on ours.

Catharsis.

I mean, in 400 years, if you judge our society by our popular drama....

Yeah.

Re: Blood revenge

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Well, that's my argument. But you should see some of the stuff I've been reading. Or maybe not. *g*

Re: Blood revenge

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

It was a grad class in critical theory that sent me screaming out of academia.

I realized one morning that I really had better things to do with my life than invent things to talk about (contradicting any stretch of common sense or appreciation for the material or the historical/ artistic integrity of its creation) to buoy my self-importance. *g*

So probably best not, all things considered.

Actually, I would argue that historically, blood revenge was probably one of the least important motivators. Considering how willing heads of state, especially, were to put aside the beheadings, maimings, and otherwise of their family members in service to their own/their nations political advancement.

They *did* get a bit het up about religion, though.

[mark356.livejournal.com]

Good question! I don't know a tenth as much about Elizabethan society as I should, but I'll keep an eye on this thread anyway.

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

The Countess of Shrewsbury case might come close (poisoning her husband so she could marry someone else, and various complicated repercussions including allegations of witchcraft)

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Ooh, yes, good point.

And popular opinion was monumentally against her, to boot. Ha.

(There's this whole thing in revenge tragedy criticism about whether the Elizabethan and Jacobean audiences would have approved of the revenger's activities or not. The people trying to argue that in fact they wouldn't have seen anything particularly terrible about it perform some remarkable rhetorical gymastics--and they're working from exactly the same evidence as the anti-revenge camp.)

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I don't know, but I happen to have the primary research document you need here -- Who's Who in History, Vol II, England 1485-1603, C.R.N. Routh, 1964, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, my edition the 1966 reprint with a terrific cover picture of Gloriana with skeletons and cherubs.

It has biographies of everyone who was anyone between those dates, and if any of them had engaged in revenge it would be there.

If you really want it and can't get hold of it with ILL, I could send you mine and you could give it back sometime, it's not as if I'm using it for anything.

[libskrat]

Eh, hm. Some of the Spanish (as in, written in Spain, not _The Spanish Tragedy_) revenge-tragedy-type things were reputed to have been based on real events. Yes, including _El burlador de Sevilla_. As the genre squicks me, I never did research how much of that was true and how much was some literary historian's wish-fulfillment.

Nor, of course, how much of that sensibility might have filtered into England.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Well, the aesthetic of Spanish revenge tragedy certainly made it into England, but I would argue that the cultural mindset did not. That's one reason most English revenge tragedies are set in foreign countries, particularly Spain and Italy.