Gender, Hunger, Horror: The History and Significance of The Bloody Banquet

Abstract

JEMCS 1.1(Spring/ Summer 2001) Gender,Hunger,Horror: The History and SignificanceofTheBloodyBanquet GaryTaylor "Stophermouth first."1 "Grief is a Gourmand - *2 an infamousscene near the end ofthe 1996 filmFargo,a murdererfeeds the leg of a human corpse intoa backyard woodchipper.3 In an equallyshockingmomentnear the end of The BloodyBanquet,the pieces ofa quarteredhuman being, freshly slaughtered, are hungon hooksinfront oftheaudience. Bothscenes violently yoketogether cozydomesticity and nauseatinghorror . The familiar and usefulAmerican woodchipper is forever transformed, inourimaginations, whenwewatchitchewingup (and spitting out,as pulp)partsofa bodythatwas, momentsbefore , a person,walkingoutofthefront doorand across thedriveway. In TheBloodyBanquet,ThomasMiddleton worksa similarhorrific metamorphosis. Inearlymodern Europe - a world withoutour refrigerators and freezers, withouthygienic supermarketsto wrap animal proteinin euphemizing plastic - every substantialhomehad a larder,in whichwerehung,on hooks, pieces offreshly butchered,smokedor salted carcasses (Jones 82-83).4 We can see themin sixteenth and seventeenth century Dutch paintingsofworking interiors, likeJoachimBeuckelaer's Kitchen Scene,with JesusintheHouseofMartha andMary(1566), wherethe colorful dead meat in the foreground utterly dwarfs thepale Saviorinthebackground (Brown 21). Butin TheBloody Banquetthosefamiliar cutsofmeat,hangingfrom thosefamiliar hooks,arepartsofa bodythatwas,atthebeginning ofthescene, a youngman,happilyentering thebedroomofhis lover. Noonewhohas witnessed"thewoodchipper scene"in Fargo is likelytoforget it (evenifhe or she wantsto). Whatwe might call "thelarderscene*in TheBloodyBanquetis equally unfor- 2 TheJournal forEarlyModern Cultural Studies1.1 gettable, and arguablymoreprofound. Butno one has seen "the larderscene" since 1642. Before1642, when thatscene could stillbe seen,theplaywas apparently popularenoughtoremain in the repertory forthreedecades; as late as 1655, it was esteemedenoughto be quoted,in thefirstanthology ofexcerpts from EnglishRenaissance drama,fifteen times - morethanany otherMiddleton playbutTheRevenger's Tragedy, morethanany Shakespeare playbut Hamlet5But thereafter TheBloodyBanquetdisappearedfrom our collectiveculturalmemory. Muchof theplay'smeaningand powerdependsupon its ability to make us look at what we cannot bear to see; therefore, in orderto understandthe play in a worldwhereit was no longerbeing performed, laterreaderswould have to imagineseeingit. But mostreaderswillrefusetodo that,because anysane personwill probablyrecoilfrom what the playdemands thatwe confront; unlikespectators,readershave the powerto refusethe play's invitationto horror.Consequently,not onlyhas the play not beenstagedsincetheRestoration; effectively, noreaderhas even imagined itbeingstaged;noeditor has suppliedtheobviousstage directionsdemandedby the dialogue; no critichas connected theplay(thatquarteredbodyon stage)totheworldoutsidethe play (themeat hangingin the spectators'homes). No one has wantedtotouchsomething so revolting, so horrifying. Nevertheless, we should forceourselvesto do so. First,because "fromapproximately1588 to 1630, drama showcasing horror was a persistent phenomenon on theEnglishstage;this dramainvolvedmostmajorplaywrights, and was performed in bothpublicand private theaters, as wellas at court" (Zimmerman 159). Second, because horror is arguablythemostpowerful of human emotions,and the earlymoderntheaterwas "thefirst large-scale,capitalized,routinized commodification ofaffect in human history" (Taylor,"FeelingBodies"274); horror in many waysepitomizes theculturalworkdonebytheemergent institutionsofmass entertainment. Third,because horror, likeother emotions,is culturallygendered.In Fargo,the "woodchipper scene"is seen through theeyesofa pregnant femalesheriff; in the"larderscene"ofTheBloodyBanquet,thecorpseis dismembered and displayedto torment a singleonstage spectator,a woman;moregenerally, themodernhorror film pervasively and fundamentally depends upon violencedirectedat women(Clover ,Creed). TheBloodyBanquet,written byThomasMiddleton and Thomas Dekker,was probablyfirst servedup to audiences- or so I willarguein thefirst sectionofthisessay- in 1609.6Thatdate Taylor 3 mattersbecause it enables us, forthe first time,to historicize theplay.LikePericles(1607),TheBloodyBanquetself-consciously resurrects an old-fashioned romance,set in thefabulousMediterranean ,in orderto investigate extremesofhumanviolence, sexuality, and need; likeCoriolanus(1608), TheBloodyBanquet dramatizesa conflict betweencourtand commonsalongthepolitical and psychologicaldividingline offood.7Moreover - as I willarguein the second sectionofthisessay- TheBloodyBanquetis thehingeuponwhichMiddleton's entiredramaticcareer turns:themissinglinkbetweenthewriter whohad createdthe verymaleworldsofMichaelmasTerm (1604) and TheRevenger's Tragedy(1606) and thewriter whowouldlaterimaginethefemale protagonists ofTheRoaring Girl (1611) and Women Beware Women (1622). And- as I willarguein thethirdsectionofthis essay- whatmade possible thatregendering is whatwe might call the Edible Complex:the problemofcannibalism,its relationshipto the moregeneralcategoryofhorror, and the relationshipofbothto gender. 1 These conclusionshave notbeenreachedbyearlierscholars partlybecause TheBloodyBanquethas neverbeen edited,and hencehas hardly evenbeenread.Therehas accordingly beenno seriousinvestigation ofitsdateofcomposition. Obviously, itmust have been written before itwas published;but eventhedate of its first editionremainedunclearforcenturies.Croppingofthe titlepage led earlierscholarsto believethattherewereeditions of1620 and 1630, whenin factonlyone editionwas everpublished ,thatof1639 (Cole).Thebeliefinan entirely fictional editionof 1620- notdiscrediteduntil 1919- led to datingsofthe play"c. 1620,"thoughno evidencehas everbeen advanced for thatdate.8 Since Middleton apparently wrotemuchoftheplay,itmust have been composedbefore his deathin 1627. Attheotherend ofthechronological spectrum, itmusthave beenwritten sometimeafterits chiefsource,the revised1597 editionofWilliam Warner'sPan his Syrinx.9 Within thisthirty-year span, thedate ofcomposition can be narrowed downbyexamining threekinds ofevidence:stylistic, theatrical, and political. David Lake believedthat"theverseofBanquetmight plausibly be taken as representing the...

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.