Having just read your column above, and the comments, I would like to comment on the order of execution (no, I am not sorry about that!) of the actions of “hanging, drawing and quartering”.
I have in front af me my copy of Ash’s dictionary published in 1775. In it he gives as one of the definitions of “draw” “to embowel”, which in turn is defined as “Embowel (v.t. from bowel) To take out the bowels, to deprive of entrails, to eviserate” (He also gives disembowelled as “Taken from the bowels” which is a subtle difference)
This, I think,- although allowing of your interpretation as well- indicates that the order in which the punishments are listed correctly in time order. First the hanging, then the drawing, followed by quartering.
This also explains why it was not called “drawing, hanging and quartering”. Certainly being drawn behind behind a horse is not much of a punishiment compared to what was to follow!
As I understand it - ‘Hung’ = You are hanged slowly - not the ‘drop’ but the noose round your neck and hauled up till almost dead - then released and allowed to get your breath back then ‘Drawn’ = basically disembowelled, then ‘Quartered’ = Arms legs and head chopped off…
Keelhauling is an old navel punishment where a sailor is tied to a line that looped beneath a ship, then they are thrown overboard on one side of the ship, and dragged under the ship’s keel, from one side of the ship to the other.
As the hull was usually covered in barnacles and stuff, if the sailor is pulled quickly, keelhauling would result in serious cuts, loss of limbs or even decapitation. If the sailor was dragged slowly, his weight might lower him sufficiently to miss the barnacles, but this method would frequently result in his drowning.
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, X1menes, we’re glad you found us. When you start a thread, it’s helpful to other readers to provide a link to the column in question. Keeps us on the same page and saves search time. No biggie, I’ve added it to the bottom of your post, and you’ll know for next time.
I am a little confused, though. Cecil specifically addresses the question of whether “drawn” means “disembowelled,” concludes that the historical descriptions of executions doesn’t support that, and the Encyclopedia Britannica writes him to say that there is some dispute about the meaning, and they’re agreeing with Cecil. Clearly, there are different interpretations by different dictionary writers.
According to Wikipedia, Guy Fawkes was sentenced to be drawn (among other things) in both senses of the word (notice the part about bowels being removed).
Everyone concurs the sentence of “drawn and quartered” includes being gutted. The question is not whether the victims were disembowelled, the question is what the word “drawn” refers to in the process.
A little too easily convinced of the ‘correctness’ of Cecil’s attribution of meaning to ‘drawn’ by the Encyclopaedia Britannicca, I think; particularly as the term is incorporated in the description of the punishment. I mean to say, someone being put to the guillotine who is wheeled out to the place of execution is not punished by ‘Cart and guillotine’, nor does someone who is walked to the firing squad have their capital punishment described as ‘Marched and shot’.
Further, evidence to the contrary regarding ‘drawing’ is borne out by its meaning in a contemporaneous context; blacksmiths being a common trade of the time were always ‘drawing out’ metal in the forge - making pieces of iron longer; a cupboard ‘drawer’ is one that is ‘pulled out’ (from the French ‘Tiroir’, derived from the verb ‘tirer’ meaning ‘to pull’); the 16th century term for underpants, ‘drawers’ is of the same concept - ‘drawers’ were a garment to be pulled on.
No, I think that the august tome was too quick to change its mind. And, frankly, probably not because the evidence presented to it was indisputable, but because it was presented in such a high-profile way. I (and others that I know of) have certainly *never had even the courtesy of a reply *to suggestions for changes to various reference books, and yet ‘Cecil’ has his ‘explanation’ accepted hollus bollus without challenge…!
I strongly doubt that Britannica simply collectively thought “Well Cecil says we’re wrong, we better change this.”, but instead looked at, you know, actual references and junk.
According to Michel Foucalt in Discipline and Punish. Drawing is the act of using the horses/draft animals to pull one apart in the Quartering.
‘“Finally he was quartered” recounts the Gazette d’ Amsterdam of 1 April 1757."This last operation was very long, because the horses were not accustomed to drawing; consequently, instead of four, six were needed; and when that did not suffice, they were forced, in order to cut off the wretch’s thighs, to sever the sinews and hack at the joints…’
No comments yet about bodily appendages hanging off the castle gates across Europe? I was curious if anyone happened to know how many pieces Oliver Cromwell was chopped into? I’m pretty sure it was more than just four.
What a mental image, coming home to your front door and there’s your grandfather William’s left leg dangling there, cousin Henry’s elbow joint … what a hoot them middle-ages must have been.
Let’s talk about keelhauling…
How in the hell did anyone survive this? You were completely dependent on others pulling you fast enough so you didn’t drown, and the faster you were pulled, the more likely you would be cut up badly.
This seems like it was a virtual death sentence. Is this correct, or did people actually survive keelhauling more often than not?
*an early example in cinema is in the original version of Mutiny On The Bounty, when Bligh keelhauls some poor bastard… He died.
Although I’ve heard he was disinterred and “executed” (for the first time - he died of natural causes) I don’t recall hearing about a posthumous trial beforehand.
Maybe you’re confusing him with Pope Formosus, whose disinterred corpse was put on trial before his “execution”.
In that usage, drawn didn’t merely mean “taken to the spot”, it meant “dragged behind a horse”, as in pulled along the ground getting rocks and sticks and stuff jammed into your body and generating a ton of road rash. Until they replaced that with a sledge, that kinda reduced the road rash element. The point being, the punishment stated was dragged behind a horse and then quartered with apparently some parts being unstated, notably being hung (or hanged or strangled or whatever) and then eviscerated and having the guts burned in front of you, possibly with some castration.
The OED actually considers that “drawn,” when used in a sentence of execution, may mean either to drag (a criminal) at a horse’s tail, or on a hurdle or the like, to the place of execution, or to draw out the viscera or intestines of; to disembowel (a fowl, etc. before cooking, a traitor or other criminal after hanging). It notes that in many cases of execution it is uncertain which sense is meant, and that the presumption is that where drawn is mentioned after hanged, the sense is to disembowel.