Richard Thornhill, who had the misfortune to kill Sir Chalmley Deering

I'm writing an article on prose depictions of duelling in the 1710s and '20s and I've had occasion to revisit the duel between Sir Chomley Deering and Col. Richard Thornhill in 1711. Interesting alone for being one of the earliest recorded pistol duels, a bevy of pamphlets followed Thornhill's arrest and subsequent sentencing for the manslaughter of his friend. My personal favourite is the excellently-titled Life and noble character of Richard Thornhill, Esq; who had the misfortune to kill Sir Chalmley Deering, Bart. 

Misfortune indeed! The history is brief but it ends with an interesting set of verses from a "Parliament-man" who is very much in favour of duelling: 

 "...if harden'd Insolence 
Presumes to give a Gentleman Offence, 
Th' offended Person, tho' against the Laws, 
Ought to revenge the Justness of his Cause." (8) 

That says it all, really. Surprisingly, this was not a very popular attitude in print, and the majority of books and pamphlets take the hardline view that duelling is disrespectful to God's meting of justice (Chishull 14) or at least is responsible for "drain[ing] the Blood of [the] best Subjects" (A True and Impartial Account of the Animosity, Quarrel and Duel Between the late Duke of Hamilton and the Lord Mohun, 17). (This is why plays in this period are so interesting, I think: playwrights knew that in order to reform the stage to something resembling respectability, they had to cut the immoral fight scenes - but it's those that get the bums on seats. As a result, you get some very weird but fascinating representations of duels.) Between c.1710 and c.1735, there seems to be a war going on between the anti-duelling faction and the "silent but deadly" pro-duelling faction. Nothing was resolved, but the fact that the anti-duellists kept trying is a miracle of perseverance on their part.

After the previous post, things have got a lot better. I've had some confidence boosts that were very much needed, I've spoken at some conferences, and I'm about to start my writing-up year. A proper post on soldiering in the late seventeenth/early eighteenth centuries is coming later this week. In the meantime, here's a placeholder image of The Dragon of Wantley, one of my favourite plays:

Fretting

I have four conferences coming up but I'm finding it really hard to keep writing. I think it's just a terror of what's to come. It's very stupid, I know, and conferences don't keep me from writing, but I do feel as though I use them to feel like a 'legitimate' academic when the words I write in my thesis don't seem like enough. For the past few days I've had a horrible malaise - a combination of regret and sadness and anger over my personal life, or rather, what isn't my personal life. I'm not sure what went wrong. I keep thinking about horrible things that have happened over the years, and I'm finding that to then balance my thesis alongside that is very wearying. It's certainly not healthy to think in this way but it's hard to shake it off once it begins. I'm sure everyone has a "could-have-been" life they think about, and while I'm happy with my immediate relationship with my boyfriend and my parents, and with my living situation, I'm finding it hard to be happy about much else, and I keep imagining the changes I would make, if only I could go back in time. It keeps me up at night, and I tried at first to block out those thoughts by reciting poetry in my head, only now the poetry just makes me think of horrible things again. This is a gloomy little post and all I can really conclude is that I need to suck it up. Like pulling teeth, I can either go on with what I'm doing or give up and ache with failure. I need to get over timidity and worrying. The past is what it is - so what if I was screwed over? Who hasn't been in one way or another. I know I'd really hate myself if I gave up now.