Revenge and Revenge Tragedy in Renaissance England
Author(s): Ronald Broude
Source: Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Spring, 1975), pp. 38-58
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of
America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2860421
Accessed: 17-01-2017 04:00 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2860421?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Renaissance Society of America, The University of Chicago Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Renaissance Quarterly
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Revenge and Revenge Tragedy
in Renaissance England
by RONALD BROUDE
'Y W HEN we speak of'revenge tragedy,' we are often unaware of
the extent to which our approach to these important Renaissance plays has been conditioned by the name we have given them.
Elizabethans themselves recognized no distinct dramatic type called
revenge play. The term is a modern one, made current at the turn of the
century by A. H. Thorndike, and first defined at length by Fredson
Bowers more than thirty years ago.1 As a critical term, it depends upon
the modern meaning of revenge, and it simultaneously reflects and
shapes both modern assumptions about the subject matter of the plays
and modern prejudices about the ethical principles upon which they are
assumed to be predicated.
In modern usage, the noun revenge, according to the American College
Dictionary, denotes 'retaliation for injuries or wrongs.' Unlike retribution, which 'suggests just or deserved punishment, often without personal motives,' revenge has a distinctly personal cast, implying 'the
carrying out of a bitter desire to injure another for a wrong done to
oneself or to those who seem a part of oneself.'2 The definition of
vengeance runs along similar lines: vengeance usually indicates 'wrathful,
vindictive, furious revenge,' although on occasion it may also have the
more impersonal meaning of'retributive punishment.' Among scholars
dealing with Elizabethan mores, revenge is often used as if it were iden-
tical with extralegal retaliation.3
Revenge play criticism reflects modern colloquial usage. Revenge
tragedy is usually understood to center around a figure who conceives
himself to have been seriously wronged, and who, overcoming obsta-
cles both within and outside himself, contrives eventually to exact
retribution, becoming in the process as depraved as those by whom he
1 'The Relations of Hamlet to the Contemporary Revenge Play,' PMLA, 17 (1902),
125-220; Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy (Princeton, 1940), passim, but esp. pp. 61-65.
2 New York, 1962. See especially the study of synonyms under revenge.
3 See, for example, C. B. Watson, Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honor
(Princeton, 1960), pp. 127-133, 354-360; and Roland Frye, Shakespeare and Christian
Doctrine (Princeton, 1963), p. 256.
[ 38]
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVENGE AND REVENGE TRAGEDY
39
has been wronged.4 Investigations of Tudor-Stuart at
revenge, recognized as necessarily prerequisite to the st
have focused on the blood feuds, duelling, and allied
revenge suggests today. Lily B. Campbell has indicate
volume of the quasi-official condemnations of these
Fredson Bowers has documented the persistence of th
favoring them.5 Subsequent critics have tended to read
terms of the model thus established, and the actions o
are, accordingly, explained as fundamentally un-Chris
a barbaric ethic derived from Senecan tragedy and th
blood feud. That this approach is not, however, entire
suggested by the inability of critics to agree upon th
several key revenges, notably those of Hieronimo an
Several recent studies of individual revenge plays h
concern of these works with the operation of divine re
ways in which various forms of human retributio
Providence to the purposes of God's justice.6 Taken a
studies suggest that the central interest of revenge trage
all, revenge-at least not revenge in the modern sense
seem to have forgotten, however, that the Renaissance wo
a more extended meaning than the modern one, a mea
equivalent to today's retribution. Significantly, the var
customs subsumed under the Renaissance word we
searching reevaluation during the sixteenth century,
Stuart dynasties sought to adapt medieval English so
tions to the needs of a Renaissance state. Revenge trag
sense be understood as a form of response to the b
crime and punishment posed by these transformatio
thought and practice. It is the purpose of the follow
examine some of the institutions with which reveng
4 See, for example, Irving Ribner, Patterns in Shakespearean Tra
pp. 15-16.
5 Campbell, 'Theories of Revenge in Renaissance England,' MP,
and Bowers, pp. 3-40. For a discussion of the anti-private reven
thought, see Eleanor Prosser, Hamlet and Revenge, 2nd ed. (Stanfo
6 See, among others, S. F. Johnson, 'The Regeneration of Hamlet
207; Ernst de Chickera, 'Divine Justice and Private Revenge in T
MLR, 57 (1962), 228-232; Irving Ribner, Introduction to the Rev
Atheist's Tragedy (London, 1964), pp. xxxii-lxvi; and R. Broude,
Titus Andronicus,' ShakS, 6 (1970), 27-34.
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
40
and, by recovering the meanings and associations of the sixteenth
tury word revenge, to indicate some of the ways in which precon
tions conditioned by modem usage may unduly influence our read
of these Renaissance plays.
In their most general sense, the Renaissance nouns revenge and v
geance, often used interchangeably, denote retribution, the respo
which is made to an offense. When the context manifests no con
with the agent effecting retribution, revenge may correspond to
modern punishment. Thus, Thomas Kyd writes that 'the blood of
iust Abel cried . . . for vengeance and reuenge upon the murd
(1592); Kyd means simply that Abel's blood called for the murder
punishment.7John Rider's English-Latin dictionary, Bibliotheca Sch
tica (1589), provides interesting confirmation of this usage: Rider o
the nouns ultio and vindicta as equivalents for vengeance, while the ver
ulcisor and vindico are adduced as equivalents of to punish. Along
same lines, John Florio's Italian-English dictionary, A Worlde of W
(1598), gives both revenge and punishment as translations for vend
for vindice Florio offers a catalogue of words and phrases which un
line how close Elizabethans might regard revenge and punishmen
being: 'Vindice: ... a reuenger of wrongs, a redresser of things, a
abuses, a defender, one that restoreth and setteth at libertie or ou
danger, a punisher of things done amisse.'
But the Renaissance revenge and vengeance denoted not only
general idea of retribution but also each particular species of retrib
authorized by any of the several socio-legal systems which coexis
uneasily in Tudor-Stuart England. An offense might be understood
7 'The Mvrder of Iohn Brewen,' in Kyd's Works, ed. Boas (Oxford, 1901o), p
S. F. Johnson has kindly drawn my attention to the interesting parallel in Richard II
11. 104-10o6: 'Which blood, like sacrificing Abel's, cries ... To me for justice and
chastisement' (Hardin Craig's ed. of Shakespeare's Works, [Glenview, Ill., 1961]).
Although the OED recognizes 'punishment' and 'chastisement' as meanings of rev
(Def. 5, obsolete), it erroneously places Kyd's example under Def. i ('The act of
hurt or harm to another in return for wrong or injury suffered; satisfaction by r
ment of injuries,') and under Def. i of vengeance ('The act of avenging oneself or anot
retributive infliction of injury or punishment; hurt or harm done from vindictiv
tives.'). The OED does not consistently give sufficient weight to the impersonal ele
in early occurrences of these nouns: there is no implication in Kyd's passage of th
sonal animus so important to the OED definitions. Several other examples cited b
OED may also be questioned, e.g., under vengeance, Def. 1, the passages from Cov
and Purchas, where the use of vengeance clearly does not contain the element of 'vin
motives.'
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVENGE AND REVENGE TRAGEDY
41
have been committed against an individual or fami
monweal, or against a divinity, and in each case a di
wrong and retribution was operative. In all cases, ho
vengeance were appropriate to denote the respon
party, whether individual, state, or god. Revenge w
retribution effected directly by an individual or family
tion effected without the intervention of any civil
this sense, the word might sometimes exert the neg
today: Francis Bacon exploits these pejorative overto
of revenge as 'a sort of wild justice' (1625).8 On the
word might be used in much the same sense, but wit
disapproval: Vincentio Saviolo, discussing how satis
is to be obtained, advises that 'the revenge ought to
(1595).9 Again, revenge and vengeance could be use
punishment meted out by the commonweal for acts
or custom as contrary to the public good: thus we
referred to as 'the common revengers' and the exec
tences as 'public vengeance.'10 Finally, the Renaissan
geance as a word proper to denote the retribution
transgression of His laws survives to this day, partly
of its recurrence in the King James Bible in phras
geance of the Lord.'11
The scope-and ambiguity-of the Renaissance r
8 'Of Revenge,' Essayes.
9 Vincentio Saviolo His Practice (London, 1595), Aa.
10 Thomas Cranmer, 'A Sermon Concerning the Time of th
Parker Society ed. of Cranmer's Miscellaneous Writings and Lette
193; and Hugh Latimer, 'Epistle for the Twenty-first Sunday after
Society ed. of Latimer's Sermons (Cambridge, 1864), p. 495.
11 Of the 47 occurrences of the nouns vengeance and revenge giv
his Analytical Concordance to the Bible, 22nd American ed. revis
(Grand Rapids, 1955), 16 occur in conjunction with the words G
spoken by God, and 4 appear in contexts clearly indicating that
divine. In all, Young cites 103 occurrences of vengeance, revenge
and their derivatives. The Hebrew words which they most ofte
neqamah (19) and the verb naqam (40). The Greek words mos
are el'Kitelv and its derivatives (13). As The Interpreter's Dictio
York and Nashville, 1962) notes in its entry for vengeance, 'seld
the Bible carry the connotation of "vindictiveness" or "revenge
associated with 'the restoration of wholeness, [and] integrity to
or man. The various terms translated "vengeance" are part of t
the Bible.'
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
42
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
geance result, in large part, from the fact that their introductio
English predates the sixteenth-century concern with distinguis
among socio-legal systems and their forms of retribution. Both r
and vengeance derive, through the Old French revenger and veng
respectively, from the Latin vindicare.12 Neither the Old French nor
Latin suggests any of the distinctions which the Renaissance wa
consider so important: the words could denote with equal proprie
retribution exacted by a private man for the murder of a relative, or
punishment meted out by a king for the transgression of his kin
laws. When, circa 1300, vengeance entered English, it denoted sim
response to a wrong, the operation of the ethical principle that
inflicted is to be paid for with harm suffered. This element of strik
balance is apparent in the word's earliest occurrences, for examp
that spilleth mannes lyf, Venjounse hyt schel awyte' (ca. 1315).13
not until the mid-sixteenth century, when the Tudor govern
pressed the claims of the state to a monopoly on all revenge, tha
need was felt for terminology which would facilitate distinction
the agents by which revenge might be effected. To carve up the g
idea denoted by vengeance, the terms 'divine vengeance,' 'public
geance,' and 'private vengeance' (vengeance taken by private sub
were introduced. These terms, however, do not seem to have ga
any permanent hold, and the ambiguity of revenge and vengeanc
mained a problem as late as the eighteenth century. Dr. Johnson
to clarify matters by declaring, in the fourth (1773) and subseq
editions of his Dictionary, that 'revenge is an act of passion; vengeanc
justice.' This distinction, he ruefully noted, however, 'is perhap
always observed.' Modern usage has to some extent done away
the ambiguity by declining to use either revenge or vengeance in con
tion with the state justice which the Renaissance called 'public re
Modern usage thus encourages distinction between state justice a
other forms of retribution-private and divine-with which
formerly coordinate, and which the noun vengeance continues to den
12 The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, ed. C. T. Onions et al. (Oxford
The element of striking a balance persists in French cognates to this day, e.g., en re
on the other hand. The etymology of French cognates seems to have paralleled that
English revenge and vengeance in several ways. For sixteenth-century French us
Edmond Huguet, Dictionnaire de la languefranfaise du seizieme siecle (Paris, 1925
13 William de Shoreham, 'De decem preceptis,' in the Percy Society ed. of Sho
Religious Poems (London, 1849), p. 98.
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVENGE AND REVENGE TRAGEDY
43
The various concepts and customs comprehended un
sance revenge and vengeance fall between socio-legal sy
complementary definitions of 'offense' and 'punishm
system, characteristic of multicentric societies in whic
tively small social units practice 'self-government,' p
members from injury by outsiders, views violence ag
property as an injury to the victim or his family, and reco
interest in the offender's punishment and their right to
The other system, usually a product of larger and mo
political structures, sees crime as an antisocial act, a th
being of the entire body politic to which society as a
through the appropriate agents. During the Middle A
maintained law and order through an array of instit
these two systems were mixed in varying proportions
a Renaissance monarchy, however, necessitated the sup
practices in which the elements of self-government we
official Tudor theory sought, accordingly, to discredit
stressing the antisocial nature of crime while playing
personal aspect. But so much a part of English thou
were the assumptions and usages of self-government
the civil authorities from being able efficiently to dis
tions claimed for them, that Tudor practice lagged w
theory, and English socio-legal institutions retained t
through much of the Renaissance. A more immediate
policy, however, lay in Englishmen's heightened sens
between the two systems so central to English concep
punishment, and in their new readiness to examine the
the problems posed by each.
From the Anglo-Saxon invasions down to the Renais
lish socio-legal institutions in which the tradition of s
was strongest operated in those times, places, and circ
no state or similar authority was available to prov
wrongs. Under such conditions, individuals or relativ
must respond themselves to offenses committed against t
of retaliation providing the only effective deterrent to p
sion.14 English socio-legal history exhibits several wel
14 On the forms of self-government practiced by various societ
potts, Kindred and Clan in the Middle Ages and After (Cambridge,
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
44
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
of self-government, each being distinguished by the social unit res
sible for effecting retribution. The blood feud, in which the social unit
established by kinship, provided security for the individual by con
ring upon him the protection of a group to which he belonged by v
of his birth. Lordship and maintenance, the institutions by which
erful noblemen waged their private wars, were predicated upon a s
mutual obligations between nobleman and retainer, the former to
ploy his influence and forces to protect the latter, and the latter to su
port the former in all his quarrels. The duel, a vogue for which
veloped in England circa 16oo, was useful primarily in matters of h
(offenses against which the civil authorities did not punish) and
cases of blood-spilling where lack of evidence or fear of judicial p
udice suggested that justice might not otherwise be obtained.15
While such institutions helped Englishmen to protect their live
property, and honor, they were not without potential dangers of
own. Oriented to the interests of relatively small social units-or, in
case of the duel, to the interests of individuals-these institutions
often indifferent to the welfare of society at large. Thus, the blood fe
the purpose of which was to ensure the safety of a family or clan, did
have to concern itself with anything beyond the jealous maintenan
the reputation for swift reprisal which alone could discourage fu
aggression. The justice of the blood feud was, accordingly, a 'subjec
justice, a justice which each family identified with its own interests
'objective' justice concerned with the rights and wrongs of the off
to be punished often had little relevance: the warrior fairly slain in
tle or the murderer struck down by his victim's kinsmen might re
the same vengeance as an innocent man killed without provocatio
Poine (London, 1923); Elliott Forsyth, La Tragedie franfaise de Jodelle a Comneill
theme de la vengeance (Paris, 1962), pp. 17-142; and the convenient selection of pap
Law and Warfare, Studies in the Anthropology of Conflict, ed. Paul Bohannan (Garden
1967). On self-government in England, see John Kemball, The Saxons in England
don, 1876), p. 267; Frederic Seebohm, Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon England (Lon
1902), pp. 254-295; J. W. Jeudwine, Tort, Crime and Police in Medieval England (Lo
1917), passim; Bowers, pp. 3-14; Mary Mroz, Divine Vengeance (Washington, D
1941), pp. 66-84; and Bryce Lyon, A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval Eng
(New York, 1960), pp. 83-88.
15 On the duel, see Frederick Bryson, The Sixteenth Century Italian Duel (Chica
1938); Bowers, pp. 30-34; Mroz, pp. 40-43; and Watson, pp. 69-73, 127-135.
16 In connection with this 'subjective' justice, consider Gawain's vengeance for his s
brothers in Malory's Morte Arthur, and Talbot's instructions to his son in Shakesp
I Henry VI, iv.vi. So little was blood revenge often concerned with 'objective' just
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVENGE AND REVENGE TRAGEDY
45
Similarly, the duel, although defended as a means of
and justice, often had less concern with honor than w
challenge was likely to be considered obligatory regard
the insult provoking it had been bestowed with ju
Awareness of these problems has always been a fa
thought-even when the available alternatives to self-g
clearly unable to provide acceptable levels of security:
tradition from Beowulf, with its sobering handling of
so central to Germanic epic, through The Morte Arthu
melancholy depiction of the ills proceeding from Gaw
upon vengeance, to the moralists' and theologians' con
'private revenge' which proliferated in the sixteenth c
The trend of medieval and Renaissance administr
more complex, and more centralized institutions repre
challenge to the tradition of self-government. But th
crown effectively to employ the increasingly sophist
mental machinery fluctuated with the power which ci
personal ability permitted each king to exercise. The o
justice was, accordingly, liable to lengthy periods of impai
so that self-government remained a viable and often
native to the justice of the king's courts. Seignorial a
failed to gain public confidence in part because of the
sistently to safeguard life and property, and in part b
tegrity was often suspect.18 The development of state
was motivated less by a disinterested desire to mainta
as efficiently as possible than by the crown's need to in
and revenues, a need which it satisfied after the Conqu
the definition of the King's Peace so that many offen
rape and murder) traditionally regarded as torts (wron
the offender and victim) were made into felonies (offe
king was concerned).19 The facts that the crown receiv
Anglo-Saxon times, that the Dooms of Edward (m.2) specifically f
the blood feud against slayers of pursued criminals. On abuses of
pp. 32-33.
17 On pre-Tudor sentiment against self-government, see Bowers, p. 12; on sixteenthcentury objections to 'private revenge,' see Campbell, above, n.5.
18 On abuses of legal justice, see Mroz, pp. 49-65.
19 On the development of royal justice, see F. W. Maitland, The Constitutional History
of England, ed. Fisher (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 105-141; Jeudwine, passim; and G. 0.
Sayles, The Medieval Foundations of England (London, 1950), pp. 336ff.
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
46
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
tried in its courts, and that the goods of convicted felons were escheat
to the crown provided strong inducements for often impecunious
ereigns to enlarge the number of offenses which their courts we
competent to try. However, the potential for judicial profits
created compromised the integrity of royal justice in the eyes of m
and this distrust, aggravated by the periodic use of the courts as instr
ments of political factionalism, persisted through the Renaiss
Moreover, while legal theorists could explain at length the pro
which transformed torts into felonies, popular thought was slow
accept a system which denied the individual or family their ageright to secure their own redress. Significantly, the principles of
blood feud were reflected in the new state justice, in the provisions
judicial combat and in the system of appeals whereby prosecution of
offender was initiated by the victim or his kinsmen. Both institut
introduced by the Normans, were still on the books in Elizabeth's
although the former does not seem to have been in use during
sixteenth century.20
As Bowers, Mary Mroz, and C. B. Watson have demonstrated
as the volume of the anti-'private revenge' literature cited by Camp
and Eleanor Prosser must presuppose-the tradition of self-governm
enjoyed continued currency during the reigns of Elizabeth and Jam
Official records mention blood feuds in England quite late in the
teenth century, while the practice survived in Scotland well past 16
Powerful noblemen continued to maintain bands of armed retain
under both Elizabeth andJames; indeed, on occasion they threatene
bring their quarrels into the royal presence, appearing at court w
numbers of armed supporters. So widespread was duelling during
early years of James's reign that the practice was considered a ser
threat to civil order.23
The currency of institutions such as blood revenge, maintenance,
20 On the judicial combat and appeals, see Sayles, p. 336; and Maitland, p. 128. F
Elizabethan's view of these institutions, see Thomas Smith, De Republica anglorum
don, 1583), Book m, chap. 3.
21 Bowers, pp. 15-40; Mroz, passim; Watson, pp. 127ff.
22 For references to blood feuds, see the Calendar of Letters and Papers Relating to
Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, ed. Bain (Edinburgh, 1894), nos. 6, 41,
and 123; and Bowers, pp. 19-20. On maintenance, see G. M. Trevelyan, English
History (London, 1944), pp. 152-156. For descriptions of particular confrontations
J. E. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I (London, 1938), pp. 147; and Bowers, pp. 17ff.
23 Bowers, pp. 30ff.
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVENGE AND REVENGE TRAGEDY
47
the duel both reflected and contributed to Renaiss
continued belief in the principles of self-governmen
act of retaliation which did not fall within one or an
tradition was nevertheless grounded upon the prem
done individuals or their families are first and foremos
the injured parties (rather than against the common
injured parties have the inalienable right to exact r
general set of mind was reinforced by 'literatur
classical tragedy and epic, and on another by contem
a lively ballad tradition-which often celebrated the
of the feud and duel.24 Frequently, the tendency of su
abstract the basic propositions of self-government from
of event and the confusion of irrelevant considerat
are often obscured in everyday life. Such presenta
important in creating a climate for revenge tragedy
does not reproduce Tudor-Stuart life with naturalis
tail, but rather deals in a conventionalized way with
everyday experience, socio-legal practice, and ethic
made relevant.
The transformations which the Tudor dynasty sou
English socio-legal institutions were motivated by t
Henry VII and his successors to secure their power b
government strong enough to counteract the sort
which had led to the Wars of the Roses.25 Officially
theory stressed the derivation of royal power from
the horrors of the internecine strife recently ended, e
of peace and order, condemning out of hand all
what their justification, which might disturb civil
England's laws as a reflection of God's, Tudor theori
24 On feuds, duels, and allied customs in literature read by Eli
41-61. A number of Child ballads deal with such feuds; some of
Earl of Murray' (no. 181), deal with affairs almost contemporar
25 On Tudor political theory, see J. W. Allen, A History of P
Sixteenth Century (London, 1928), pp. 120-270; F. Le Van Bau
Theory of Kingship (New Haven, 1940), passim; Mroz, passim
speare's 'Histories' (San Marino, 1947), passim. For concise popul
tions, see 'An Exhortation Concerning Good Order and Obedience to Rulers and
Magistrates' and 'An Homily Against Disobedience and Wilful Rebellion,' both in the
official collection of homilies.
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
48
as an offense against God, a source of communal pollution wh
should the criminal long remain unpunished, threatened to bring d
wrath down upon the entire commonweal. By the words 'To
belongeth vengeance, and recompense' (Deuteronomy 32:35),
was understood to have reserved to Himself the punishment of t
who offended Him by transgressing His laws. Only in excepti
instances, however, was His direct intervention required; for run
the-mill cases, God was represented as content that mundane retributio
be effected by the king and magistrates, whose offices had been ordain
by God for that very purpose.
Within this framework, the forms of self-government which
under the heading of 'private revenge' were essentially political p
lems. The earliest discussions of private revenge, it should be noted, te
to occur in political contexts, where it is dealt with as one among
complex of evils associated with rebellion and riot, and represente
an impious infringement of the divine patent granted the king a
magistrates.26
Despite the apparent simplicity of Tudor-Stuart theory, we must
be misled into assuming that the line between 'public' and 'pri
vengeance was either clearcut or generally agreed upon. Indeed, t
word magistrate militated against a precise definition of'public reve
for, retaining traces of its Latin derivation, it might denote not on
formally commissioned justice, but also a nobleman, military office
other person in authority.27 The line between 'public' and 'pri
revenge was further obscured by the perpetuation of pre-Tudor ins
tions requiring private subjects to perform functions which would
day be regarded as routine police work. The 'watches' which patr
city streets each night were made up of citizens expected to serv
turn.28 The 'hue and cry' placed upon all able-bodied men in
26 See, for example, Cranmer, 'A Sermon Concerning the Time of the Rebel
and Latimer, 'A Sermon on the Gospel of All Saints,' Miscellaneous Letters and Wri
p. 481.
27 Thus the Mirror for Magistrates deals with the careers of public figures relativel
of whom were commissioned justices. See also Mroz, pp. 32-39.
28 On Tudor law enforcement, see W. M. Lee, A History of Police in England (Lo
1901), pp. 91-o101; Patrick Pringle, Highwaymen (New York, 1963), pp. 54ff.; and
contemporary comment, Smith, II, 21; and Francis Bacon, 'Answers to Questio
Touching the Office of Constables,' in Bacon's Works, ed. Spedding et al. (Bos
186o-64), Vol. 15, pp. 339-346.
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVENGE AND REVENGE TRAGEDY
49
parish responsibility for pursuing malefactors discover
limits. Thus, as the Elizabethan statesman Sir Thomas
'euerie English man is a sergiant to take the theefe,
himselfe negligent therein, doth not only incurre eui
fore, but hardly shall escape punishment.'29
Central to the concept of'public' revenge was the pr
mandate, upon which the king and magistrates groun
ity. Divine mandate, however, might be understood t
the formal structures of civil government, so that pr
not conform to orthodox definitions of'public' vengea
theless be defended from the imputation of 'private' r
venger of blood (the next of kin of a criminal's victi
garded as acting with divine mandate, for the Pentateuch
the history of a blood revenge tradition similar to E
his duties in Numbers 35:19: 'The revenger of blood h
the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him
might also claim to be a human agent of divine retrib
cording to an argument frequently adduced, such com
more directed by the secret will of God, and are the e
hidden iudgements.'31
The exigencies of Reformation politics encouraged co
ibility on the question of the alternatives open to priv
public justice fails. With the accession of a Catholi
Protestant thinkers began to consider with increasing
the circumstances which might justify bypassing roya
Christopher Goodman argued that when civil authori
gent in administering justice, 'the people' have not on
the 'duetie to do it them selues, . .. hauing the worde
warrant, to which they are all subiect, and by the sam
forthe all euill from them.'32 The same argument was
Scottish Protestants who deposed Mary Stuart, accused
29 Smith, I, 20.
30 On the vendetta among biblical peoples, see Treston, passim, b
Forsyth, pp. 6off.
31 Saviolo, fol. c2v.
32 How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyed ([Geneva?], 1558), p
towards tyrannicide in the sixteenth century, see Roland Mousnier
Henry IV, tr. Joan Spencer (New York, 1973), passim, but esp. pp.
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
50
a party to her husband's murder.33 Similar reasoning lay behind
Instrument of Association, the bond by which thousands of Engl
gentlemen, fearful that Catholic conspiracies might bring Mary to
English throne, vowed 'in the presence of the eternal and everlas
God ... to act the utmost revenge' for any attempt on Elizabeth's
upon all who stood to benefit by her death.34
Neither Tudor political theory nor Tudor religion rejected
blood-for-blood ethic which was the basis of private, public, and di
vengeance alike. It was simply asserted that in matters of felony
and the king were the parties most offended, and that to them w
reserved the right to exact retribution. In general, Tudor attitud
toward crime and punishment manifested little concern with eit
'Christian' mercy or the social rehabilitation of the criminal.35 T
sterner aspects of Tudor justice were reinforced by the Reforma
with its shift in emphasis from God's saving mercy to His aveng
wrath.36 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his bloo
shed,' the Bible (Genesis 9:6) had decreed, and no less an authority
Luther had cited this verse as the mandate upon which all civil gov
ment is based.37 Sincere repentance and faith in God's mercy might
a criminal's soul from damnation, but it could not save his neck fr
the hangman's rope. Sentences were severe, and executions, publi
attended, were regarded as conveniently combining instruction a
delight.38
33 This idea is presented in pictorial terms in the 'Darnley Memorial Portrait,' at
uted to Livinus de Vogelaare, and now at Holyrood, in which the infant James VI k
at Darnley's tomb, calling upon God to avenge his murdered father. The banner u
which the Protestant lords rode to Carberry Hill bore a similar picture with the w
'Judge and revenge my caus 0 Lord.'
34 For the text of the Instrument, see The Trial of Mary Queen of Scots, ed. St
(London, etc., 1951), pp. 31-32. The major provisions of the Instrument were s
quently passed into law as 27 Elizabeth, cap. 1.
35 On crime and punishment in Renaissance England, see Smith, II, 24; L. 0. Pik
History of Crime in England (London, 1873-76), In, 1-166; and G. R. Elton, England
the Tudors (London and New York, 1955), pp. 57-66. On the several forms of j
among which the Renaissance distinguished, see Jane Apetkar, Icons of Justice (New
1969), pp. 54-57.
36 On this shift-and its repercussions in sixteenth-century English literatur
Willard Farnham, The Medieval Heritage of Elizabethan Tragedy (Berkeley an
Angeles, 1936), pp. 213-452.
37 'Lectures on Genesis,' in The American Edition of Luther's Works, vol. II, ed.
Pelikan and Poellot (St. Louis, 1960), p. 140.
38 On the theological and civil implications of crime, see H. H. Adams, English
Domestic or Homiletic Tragedy (New York, 1943), pp. 12ff.
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVENGE AND REVENGE TRAGEDY
51
The New Dispensation, which we might suppose to
sidered a moderating influence upon the stern justic
ment, was seen to complement rather than supersed
Significantly, the Geneva Bible glosses the 'eye for
Exodus 21 not with a reference to Christian mildnes
the assertion that 'the execution of this law only bel
trates.' Indeed, the demonstration that the Mosaic
abrogated by Christ's admonition to 'resist not evil'
was a popular theme in early Protestant writing.39 T
evil, it was argued, rendered retribution necessary
Matthew 5:39 was, accordingly, not to let criminals
rather to discourage Christians from seeking retribu
tian reasons. The good Christian was expected to suff
all injury to himself, and to remain impervious to
hatred, anger, and self-interest. However, when wro
disinterestedly as offenses against God and common
response was motivated by piety and love of justice
permissible. 'On behalf of others,' writes Luther, 'h
tian] can and should seek vengeance and protection,
much as he can to achieve it.'40
Today, with three centuries' hindsight, we can dis
Tudor-Stuart socio-legal institutions away from self-
ever, we ought not to suppose that most Renaiss
confronted with an assortment of practices-som
some overlapping, some redundant, but none so man
to render the others superfluous-could readily und
ciate the nature of the transformation through whic
If James's subjects realized how socially disruptive
they also recognized that it was in the eyes of man
available for the protection of their reputations and
cognizant of the potential danger of other forms of
they were also aware of the inefficiency of the civil
inability in many cases to identify and apprehend c
them convicted and punished.
39 See, for example, Luther, Temporal Authority, Works, vol
Schindel (Philadelphia, 1962), 99ff.; and Calvin, Institutes, Book
40 Temporal Authority, p. 0lo. Luther is not speaking of 'private
of seeing justice done.
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
52
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
There existed in Renaissance England no official agency compar
in function to today's police.41 In the development of a standing f
responsible for the maintenance of internal order, England la
somewhat behind the Continent, a fact which has been attribute
the one hand to libertarian fears that such a corps might prove an
strument of tyranny and, on the other, to Englishmen's reluctanc
bear the costs of supporting such an organization.42 Responsibility
investigating most acts of violence fell to the constables and justic
the peace, who, already overburdened with duties, and often unequ
the tasks entailed by their offices, had neither training, time, nor inc
tion sufficient to render them effective in this capacity. Moreover
naissance criminology was extremely primitive, and, unless he w
unlucky enough to be discovered in the act, a clever felon intent u
hiding his tracks stood an excellent chance of escaping altoget
Indeed, a competent poisoner could usually manage to conce
evidence of foul play.
Given the confused state of English socio-legal institutions circa
we can understand why, despite the growing feeling against all for
self-government, there remained sufficient diversity of opinion to
fer some measure of legitimacy upon most existing practices. Ind
the dilemmas created by the conflicting claims of religion, ho
philosophy, blood, and civil duty were a commonplace of Renaiss
thought. As Montaigne observed, 'By the law and right of armes
that putteth up an injurie shall be degraded of honor and nobilities
he that revengeth himselfe of it, shall by the civill Law incurre a capit
punishment.'43 It is against this background of divided loyalties,
bivalence, and ethical groping that we must regard the measure of
ceptance accorded by Renaissance Englishmen to even the most e
rate and consistent theories of retribution set forth in political
moral treatises or implicit in novelle and plays.
Divine vengeance, certainly one of the most important concept
exert its influence on sixteenth-century thought, was, as has often
noted, a pervasive theme in Tudor-Stuart tragedy. Yet it is improb
41 The most competent investigative force, Walsingham's aggressive and astute
ligence, confined itself largely to seeking out political and religious 'subversives.'
42 Pringle, pp. 55-56.
43 The Essayes, tr. Florio (London, 1603), 1.22, cited by Watson, p. 128. On R
sance ambivalence regarding 'private revenge,' see Watson, pp. 127ff.
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVENGE AND REVENGE TRAGEDY
53
that we shall ever be able to unravel the threads of fai
which made up the fabric of Renaissance Englishmen
wards this far-reaching idea. On the one hand, divine
certain respects a hollow convention, an all too conve
retribution the very neatness of which rendered it suspec
hand, however, it was an extremely useful concept wh
a sort of ethical touchstone by means of which the v
human retribution could be evaluated and related to ea
over, it provided comforting reassurance that even t
umphs of evil and the depressing failures of human
places in the Divine Plan and would, in God's time, be
glory and the joy of all Christians. Thus, the Reforma
Protestant thinkers as the providentially ordered vis
vengeance upon the Satanic forces which had corrupte
During the dark days of the 158o's and '90o's, when th
prise threatened to snuff out English Protestantism,
divine retribution was seen in the exposures of Ca
morton, Babington, and other Catholic conspirator
struction of the Armada was read as the punishment
upon proud and papist Spain.45 On the politico-leg
vengeance reaffirmed the authority of the king and
making them its agents, while holding forth the pro
those criminals who chanced to evade civil justice w
punishment.
Of particular interest to Renaissance Englishmen w
which the heavens were thought to reveal and reveng
As Campbell, Willard Farnham, and H. H. Adams have
depicting the complicated workings of divine retribut
siderable popularity during the late sixteenth and ear
44 On Protestant historiography, see Ernst Lee Tuveson, Millennium
ley and Los Angeles, 1949), pp. 22-70; Norman Cohn, The Pursuit
(New York, 1961), pp. 251-306; and R. Broude, 'Vindicta Filia Te
(1973), 489-502.
45 See, for example, among the ballads published by R. W. Morfil
the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, Part in, Ballads from Manuscripts, v
'The Complaint of a Christian . ..' (pp. 189-19o); 'A Brief Answe
and 'A Proper New Ballad . . .' (p. 92). On contemporary viewsSpanish-regarding the hand of God in the Armada's destruction, se
The Armada (Boston, 1959), pp. 387-392; and A. M. Hadfield, Time
(London, 1964) pp. 198-217, but esp. 198 and 210. The 'Armada med
Flavit et Dissipati Sunt-God breathed and they were scattered.
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
54
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
centuries.46 Broadside ballads, news pamphlets, metrical tragedie
novelle in increasing numbers dealt with the careers of criminal
had contrived to escape detection, often for years, only to be exposed
the heavens at the appointed moment. Although the raw mater
these narratives came from diverse sources-from classical au
continental novelle, English history, and contemporary scandal
events were often reconceived and presented to English readers
pattern designed to emphasize the inevitability of God's vengea
Such tales are novelle in the sense of the word-retellings of rema
happenings. It is the odd, unexpected, sometimes bizarre, but a
relentlessly logical ways in which the heavens work that give t
stories their point.
Dramatic counterparts of such narratives, the plays we call rev
tragedy may be read, at least on one level, as demonstrations o
ways in which God reveals and revenges secret crimes. Their treat
of this theme are highly conventionalized-indeed, formulaic. A
crime-usually but not always murder-is committed. Fear o
covery goads the criminal into increasingly intricate and frantic
gems, each of which Providence turns back upon him, so that his eff
to conceal his guilt serve instead to expose him. The device by wh
hopes once and for all to escape his pursuers, destroy his enem
secure the power which will guarantee him safety is transform
Providence into the opportunity for which his enemies have been
ing, so that at his end, as at each stage of his career, the criminal pr
the instrument of his own undoing.
That the secret criminal be hoist with his own petard is cent
revenge tragedy's meaning, for the essence of criminal depravi
conceived to be the criminal's pride in his own cunning and his c
quent contempt for divine justice. Illustrating the text 'The Lo
known by the judgment he executeth; the wicked is snared in th
of his own hands' (Psalms 9:16), revenge tragedy underlines the
tions of criminal vision, using dramatic irony to enable the audie
savor the process by which the criminal, too nearsighted to doub
control over events, proceeds headlong toward death and damna
46 Campbell, 'Theories of Revenge,' pp. 238ff; Farnham, pp. 271-339; and A
pp. 26-53.
47 Compare, for example, the story of Bianca Maria, Countess of Celant (Marston's
'insatiate countess') as told by Bandello (i, 4), Belleforest (n, 20) and Painter (n, 24).
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVENGE AND REVENGE TRAGEDY
55
Time is the medium in which Providence works, wea
complex patterns which remain beyond mortal ken un
of their completion. Retribution, we hear again and ag
matter of time: 'Time is the author both of truth an
Will make the murderer bring forth himself'; 'De Fl
drous honest heart; / He'll bring it out in time.'48
Within this formula, a revenger may play any of s
may, like Hamlet, be the righteous agent of God's
the secret criminal. He may, like Barabas, be the secr
like Giovanni and Soranzo, he may be both instrumen
divine retribution.
The nature of Renaissance revenge-a set of diverse
by the principle of retributive justice but differentiated
origins, definitions of offense, and modes of response-len
to the sort of dramatic structure in which a play is built
actions presenting complementary aspects of a centr
the divine vengeance, the operation of which forms t
thematic center of each revenge play, are disposed the
human vengeance, arranged so that they may define a
on one another. In general, these forms of human ven
reflections of divine justice. At their best, they are im
divine retribution, having as their ends the maintena
political order through the enforcement of God's laws
they are perversions of divine vengeance, impious inso
other ends-the satisfaction of personal passions o
family honor-above divine justice. Thus, vengeance s
d'Ambois', untainted by hatred or anger, and executed
ness of divine mission, is most nearly in accord with
(Clermont's vengeance is contrasted with that which
taken upon Bussy and that which Charlotte recommen
Montsurry.) At the other extreme is Hoffman's v
pirate father: it is dictated by family loyalty, motivat
lust for power, conducted at the expense of innocent
devoted to the subversion of political and cosmic ord
48 These passages are from, respectively, The Spanish Tragedy, in, 2
ed.); The Revenger's Tragedy, v.iii.117 (Revels Plays ed.); and The Ch
(Revels Plays ed.).
49 On Clermont, see R. Broude, 'George Chapman's Stoic-Chris
70 (1973), 51--61.
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
56
RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
vengeance is set off against the just vengeance taken upon him
Mathias, Martha, and John of Saxony.) This mode of thematic org
zation is well suited to the purposes of playwrights who, like Chap
and Tourneur, may be concerned with examining the nature and fo
of retribution and exploring the courses open to just men living
societies where civil justice has broken down. However, even in t
work of playwrights less concerned with the philosophical aspect
retribution, the multifaceted quality of revenge tends to impose
sort of thematic structure, for the various forms of revenge portr
are most readily understood in terms of their relationships to ea
other. Thus the nature of the revenge theme combined with dram
convention to invite consideration of the religious, ethical, and s
legal implications of revenge.
While the narrative and thematic structure of revenge tragedy asser
in accordance with orthodox Tudor-Stuart doctrine, the preceden
cosmic and political order over the principles of family solidarity
personal honor, the tension between these two sets of values often
vides a focus for dramatic interest. The moral of The Atheist's Trag
that 'patience is the honest man's revenge'-depends for its force u
the conflict between blood revenge-the principles of which Char
mont is at first prepared to accept-and the faith in God which T
neur here recommends as the pious alternative. The vengeanc
Tamora is firmly grounded in the vendetta, and our appreciation of
tradition enables us to see the element of justice in her position,
thereby to understand Titus Andronicus as a work more complex t
simple good-guys-versus-bad-guys melodrama. In Hamlet, both bl
revenge and divine justice work toward similar ends, but the
claims of the former, which would be satisfied with Claudius' death
never completely reconciled with those of the latter, which requ
Hamlet's death as part of the providential program for Denmark
generation. This tension contributes to Hamlet's tragic dimension, l
ing an uncomfortable awareness of the price in suffering and life w
Providence sometimes exacts for keeping the cosmos in order.
Notwithstanding their dependence upon orthodox conception
divine and human vengeance, revenge plays are by no means simp
dramatic homilies. On the contrary, revenge tragedy, as a corpus
flects a considerable range of Renaissance attitudes toward reveng
There are, to be sure, plays predicated upon the conventional tru
God's justice and doctrinaire condemnation of all vengeance vi
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVENGE AND REVENGE TRAGEDY
57
outside official channels. The two plays attributed
fall under this heading, their elements of undisguise
generally agreed to constitute an important factor
effectiveness. But the revenge play form could also
modate more liberal attitudes toward retribution.
ofBussy D'Ambois is a thoughtful and intelligent ana
stances which can justify a private subject's filling
ligent prince. Going beyond Chapman's liberalism t
metrically opposed to Tourneur's orthodoxy, we fi
handling of revenge play conventions can sometim
rious reservations about the 'official' values with wh
associated. Read thus, Marlowe's Jew of Malta seem
vehicle for its author's reputed skepticism: the cyni
Ferneze and Del Bosco to the religious and moral pr
fess lends a sardonic note to the pious closing couplet in
Malta's deliverance is given 'neither to Fate nor Fort
While revenge tragedy presents a highly formalize
ized picture of divine justice, its portrayal of human
be more in keeping with the harsh realities of Ren
'public' and 'private' vengeance are depicted with a s
various failings. Civil justice is rarely presented
course. At its worst, it is manifestly corrupt, perve
tyrants such as Saturninus or Piero. In its better momen
well intentioned but nearsighted: witness the judge
Charlemont's trial. With the exception of hero
Hieronimo, Hamlet, and Clermont (who are products
trived combinations of circumstance, motivation, an
maximum provocation and manifest evidence of div
geance which bypasses the king or magistrate is usu
irresponsible and dangerous. Families and individuals
ing themselves with callous indifference to social rep
the innocent, and undermining civil order.
The world of revenge tragedy is, then, one in whi
adultery, and assorted other evils flourish, and in
forms of human retribution seem unequal to main
short, it is a world which, allowing for a certain deg
geration, may seem as senseless and chaotic as the
world of the plays is shown in the end to be ruled b
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
58 RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
impression of confusion to result from th
If these limitations sometimes lead just
Titus to feel deserted by their gods, they
such as Claudius and Barabas will end up
In a sense, then, revenge tragedy can be
elegant simplicity of Tudor-Stuart theor
sistency of Tudor-Stuart justice. Revenge
be identified and formalized within the
dramatic form, opening for the audience th
both the intellectual and emotional level
NEW YORK CITY
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.96 on Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:00:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms