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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2003-06-27 08:36 pm (UTC)Blood revenge
Date: 2003-06-27 11:16 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2003-06-28 01:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-28 01:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-28 04:43 am (UTC)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.)
Re: Blood revenge
Date: 2003-06-28 04:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-28 05:05 am (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2003-06-28 07:23 am (UTC)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.
Re: Blood revenge
Date: 2003-06-28 08:40 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2003-06-28 10:49 am (UTC)Nor, of course, how much of that sensibility might have filtered into England.
no subject
Date: 2003-06-28 11:19 am (UTC)