Castration in Elizabethan England

[bobov (imported)]

Roderigo Lopez, personal physician to Queen Elizabeth the Great of England, was accused in 1594 of accepting a promise of 50,000 crowns from Philip II, King of Spain, to poison the Queen. At his trial, Lopez claimed that he intended to bilk Philip, taking the money without poisoning Elizabeth. His appeals were denied, and he was convicted. Lopez, along with two assistants, was sentenced to be publicly hung, taken down alive, castrated, and then torn limb from limb. Because the case involved a foreign conspiracy against England, popular rage and bloodlust reached a frenzy. When the Queen delayed the execution, weighing a possible commutation, there was rioting in the streets. Giving in to public demands, the Queen let the execution proceed. On June 7, 1594, the three men were taken from the Tower of London and the sentence carried out. An enormous crowd watched, laughing and jeering at the condemned. Scholars speculate that Shakespeare was in the crowd, and that the horror the laughing mob inspired in him may have influenced his composition of "The Merchant of Venice."

There is no record of what became of the three men's severed parts. I like to think that they went to the old Queen, who fondled the dried remains whenever any man threatened to take from her her dignity and power. As Groucho would have put it, Rest in Pieces.

[Slammr (imported)]

This was the common punishment for treason:

This was the ultimate punishment available in English law for men who had been convicted of High Treason. Women were burned at the stake instead, apparently for the sake of decency.

The full sentence passed upon those convicted of High Treason up to 1870 was as follows : That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.” So not for the feint hearted then!!

As you will see from the sentence it should properly be called drawing, hanging and quartering as the condemned was drawn to the place of execution tied to the hurdle which was dragged by a horse. This is confirmed by contemporary law books. Drawing does not refer to the removal of the intestines in this context and remained part of the sentence for High Treason long after the disembowelling and dismemberment had ceased. The hurdle was similar to a piece of fencing made from thin branches interwoven to form a panel to which the prisoner was tied to be dragged behind a horse to the place of execution. Once there, the prisoner(s) were hanged in the normal way (i.e. without a drop to ensure that the neck was not broken) but cut down whilst still conscious. The penis and testicles were cut off and the stomach was slit open. The intestines and heart were removed and burned before them. The other organs were torn out and finally the head was cut off and the body divided into four quarters. The head and quarters were parboiled to prevent them rotting too quickly and then displayed upon the city gates as a grim warning to all.

At some point in this agonising process the prisoner inevitably died of strangulation and/or haemorrhage and/or shock and damage to vital organs.

More at Hanging drawing and quartering (http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/hdq.html)

[Blaise (imported)]

In 1776, the British did this to a Baptist man who refused to pay his tax to the Church of England. Great people, Christians and Brits.

[bobov (imported)]

Oh, but what a charming custom! I can just see the vendors hawking beer, cotton candy for the children, and souvenir programs.

Joking aside, and on a much more serious subject, photos were often taken at lynchings of black men in the South. Some of these were actually turned into postcards! In the photos, you can see men, women, and children grinning and posing proudly with the - sometimes castrated - corpse. That crowds were willing to pose for these photos shows the sense of unchallengeable entitlement they felt. Last year, an art gallery in NYC did an exhibit of these photos. Remember that lynchings continued into the 1960s. We're not so different from the Elizabethans as we like to think. At least Lopez was actually convicted of treason, while the offenses of the black victims were often imaginery.

[A-1 (imported)]

TWO Questions...

1. Where and from whom did the native American Indians learn to take scalps?

2. Where and from whom the the Arabs learn to behead people?

hmmmm?

A-1

[bobov (imported)]

Well, I don't suppose you'd be asking the questions if the answer weren't white Europeans. On the other hand, you're not suggesting that neither the Indians nor the Arabs killed or tortured people before Europeans suggested it, are you? So far as I know, killing and cruelty have been practiced by all people at all times. The particular technique makes little difference. I'd be curious to know how the Indians and the Arabs did it before adopting the European method, as they did in so many things.

[kb57z (imported)]

In 1776, the British did this to a Baptist man who refused to pay his tax to the Church of England. Great people, Christians and Brits.

1776 sounds a little bit on the late side for the full hanging, drawing and quartering, which was, after all, the punishment for treason. It was probably more the 'Baptist' bit that was the problem, rather than the refusal to pay up. As soon as you mix the religion up with the politics, non-conformity in belief becomes a political threat. It is why the founding fathers of America mandated the separation of Church and State in the first place, and why it was certainly a mistake to insert the words 'under God' into the Pledge(?) in the first place......

[JesusA (imported)]

A scholarly article looking at castration in 17th century England can be found at The Castrator's Song: Female Impersonation on the Early Modern Stage ( http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2422). The article is one of the many pieces on the Nonfiction Board of the Archive.

[bobov (imported)]

Old Softee, dear friend, have you truly not one tear to shed for working men who are abducted and beheaded because you have such hatred for the President of the United States? When you say they work for "30 silver coins," do you truly mean to say that their jobs make them akin to Judas, who betrayed Your Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ?

As Jesus said:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Jesus had a lot more to say, but you get the point, which is: if you're going to judge and hate, don't hide behind Jesus.

No political conflict justifies the abduction and death by torture of innocent working men, who place themselves at risk to earn high wages for their families. I understand that you are passionately opposed to the war. But if you're opposed because of the harm war does, then join hands with others to lessen the harm; don't let your opposition turn you warlike. Some might be mistaken or confused, so let's help, not hurt.