Dianna Garzón
In Elizabethan and Jacobean tragedies, there is a standard narrative of corruption within the court system, evoking a feeling of obligation for the lead avenger to seek a form of justice known as private revenge. I will examine works by Thomas Kyd, William Shakespeare, and Thomas Middleton to establish that Elizabethan and Jacobean authors channeled moral conflict and the classic revenge qualities, such as those presented in Seneca’s Thyestes (c. 54-65 CE), to bring attention to their legal and political commentary. Given the thematic prominence of injustice and the vast popularity of revenge tragedies, these plays served as political statements against the social and political injustice within the failing legislative system of Elizabethan and Jacobean England.
Private revenge is a type of justice achieved without legal authority, often through an act of violence. Although the Tudor monarchy moved toward centralized power in sixteenth-century England, private revenge persisted well into the 1600s.[1] Biblical and early modern English law explicitly delineates that revenge is solely reserved for higher power and is out of limits otherwise.[2] According to Derek Dunne, the need to correct the flawed justice system overpowered the consciousness of morality: “Elizabethans knew revenge was wrong, but because of this deep-seated inheritance of revenge, ‘[t]here would be a few Elizabethans who would condemn the son’s blood-revenge on a treacherous murderer whom the law could not apprehend for lack of proper legal evidence’” (17).[3] With poorly developed forensics and the typical mishandling of evidence, murders and crimes were difficult to prove, often allowing the perpetrator to be set free.
In response to ongoing frustration, revenge tragedies acted as a medium to illuminate the flawed justice system of Elizabethan and Jacobean England. The criticism of England’s court proved to be popular among audiences and elevated the role of revenge tragedies: “However, in reality, far from unleashing a ‘general disrespect for law,’ the treatment of revenge in the early modern theatre tends to replicate, modify and critique legal procedures” (Dunne 17). Playwrights during this era had vast social influence; in utilizing their platform while simultaneously “giving the audience what they want,” English playwrights could promote the issue of judicial inefficiency. As this criticism became mainstream within Elizabethan theatre and society, it is apparent how profoundly audiences related. Although revenge was considered morally unjust, audiences nonetheless understood the dangers of public vengeance and projected the need for change. Public revenge inevitably became a common theme of the period.
The popularity of revenge tragedy stemmed from more than solely elevating judicial injustice; the revenge tragedy genre also allowed audiences to confront their political discomfort. As England faced political difficulties, “revenge tragedy provided a way of indirectly addressing the repressed guilts and anxieties arising from the crises of Reformation and Counter-Reformation and the oscillating political fortunes with which they were associated” (Neill 330). With the ongoing political pressure and strain occurring during the Reformation (1517-1648), revenge tragedies served as an outlet that obliquely confronted political components presented during the era. The tragedy genre tackles systematic government issues and the root of frustration for those who have fallen victim. Michael Neill describes the profound influence of revenge tragedy on audiences: “The exceptional power of the genre to compel the early modern imagination, then, had much to do with its ability to mobilize conflicting attitudes toward the subversiveness of personal vengeance.” The revenge tragedy genre was not solely recognized for its popularity but for its ability to address how Elizabethan and Jacobean audiences may have felt about the option of private revenge in achieving justice. Although the commentary in revenge tragedies did not create a full-fledged movement for political change, it did allow for audiences to witness private revenge pursued to the fullest extent.
To further understand the popularity of revenge tragedies, we must consider the extent of early modern audiences’ distaste for their judicial inequality. According to Tanya Pollard, various societal factors led to the revenge genre’s popularity: “Social and political changes in Elizabethan England created a heightened demand for it. Revenge redresses injustice caused by abuses of power, and the distribution of power in this period was not only hierarchical, but increasingly unstable” (59). Given the classism throughout sixteenth-century England, a void was filled by the fictional dramatization of court members facing the consequences of their behavior. Instead of illustrating a perfect judicial system that satisfied the needs of Elizabethans and Jacobeans, “[t]he genre offered the gratifying spectacle of power for those who lacked it and reassured the injured that somehow justice could and would be done” (60). The revenge tragedy genre accomplished both the ideal and impossible for English audiences.
The Elizabethan and Jacobean revenge tragedy has its origins in Seneca’s Thyestes (c. 62 CE), which became the revenge tragedy template utilized by authors. Aside from Thyestes’s entertaining moral and dramatic conflict, the play effectively illustrates just how corrupt court members could be. Jessica Winston notes the major fallacies within a hierarchical power system: “As Thyestes reaches its horrifying conclusion, one sees that riches, crowns, ambitions, and evil hearts do make kings” (39). Contrary to court members’ conventional glorification, Thyestes brings forward the crown’s poor political leadership and personality. King Atreus demonstrates inadequate authority as he believes, “[t]he best thing about being king is making folks accept whatever you do, and even praise it” (205-07). For a king to verbalize his disregard for the morality of his actions and declare absolute power suggests Seneca’s sentiments regarding a monarchy. Given how the English early modern court system was also committing injustices, this almost satirical narrative presented by King Atreus closely reflected the English audience’s view of their monarchs, too. As the demand grew for revenge tragedies, and considering the consensus against the court system, Elizabethan and Jacobean authors subsequently utilized the revenge genre to depict their disadvantaged and inequitable political circumstances. Seneca’s social and political implications resonated with these audiences, as they felt their monarchy was failing them, as well.
When considering famous tragedies of the era, such as The Spanish Tragedy (c.1587), the various integrations of judicial language that describe legal abuse indicate Kyd’s undertones of political commentary. The mistreatment and consequence of ineffective law can be seen in The Spanish Tragedy when Hieronimo says, “For blood with blood shall, while I sit as judge, / Be satisfied, and the law discharged” (3.6.35-36). Frustrated at being unable to achieve justice for his son, Hieronimo alludes to seeking private revenge with his words, “For blood with blood,” by suggesting that one who kills must be killed himself. Hieronimo’s remarks demonstrate that he believes defying the law is the only manner of truly achieving justice, despite initially believing the opposite. As Thomas Kyd develops Hieronimo’s distaste for the unfair judicial process and embeds the idea of a failing judicial system, Kyd exemplifies how Elizabethan authors integrated social and political commentary into their written works.
In The Spanish Tragedy, the internal conflict between private revenge through human self-governance and revenge determined by God becomes increasingly pronounced in a failed judicial system. In Hieronimo’s desire for justice, he does not initially pursue private vengeance. However, the injustice that consistently occurs because of the inadequate judicial system provokes Hieronimo to feel as if he is obligated to avenge his son’s death himself. The failure of the court as seen in The Spanish Tragedy was common in the English legal system of the time: “In an age in which England lacked an efficient police system, it would have been difficult to detect crimes while they were unfolding, which would have led, in turn, to a number of legal cases whose outcomes hinged upon largely unverifiable accusations” (Semenza 54). Given the inability to verify Horatio’s murder suspects, this legal environment, like England’s flawed and unadvanced system, leads directly to Hieronimo’s madness and murder.
As the ineffective court in The Spanish Tragedy epitomized a common circumstance for Elizabethans, it also idealized the conditions for pursuing private revenge. The overwhelming resentment toward the consistent injustice further promoted other avenues of achieving legal equity. According to Gregory Semenza, “Kyd’s play argues that––regardless of either God’s or gods’ roles in the cosmic scheme of things––the absence of effective human justice systems leads to destructive forms of self-government” (58). If an effective judicial system is not in place, individuals often find alternatives that accomplish the same result. Private means of justice occur when Hieronimo cannot accept Isabella’s words that God is the only revenger. He soon realizes he cannot achieve justice through legal means:
Thus must we toil in other men’s extremes,
That know not how to remedy our own,
And do them justice, when unjustly we,
For all our wrongs, can compass no redress.
But shall I never live to see the day
That I may come, by justice of the heavens,
To know the cause that may my cares allay?
This toils my body, this consumeth age,
That only I to all men just must be,
And neither gods nor men be just to me. (3.6.1-10)
Hieronimo seems to understand the irony in his position as a judge who seeks justice for others but cannot achieve justice for himself. Although Hieronimo “to all men just must be,” his dispensation of justice is unrequited, as “neither gods nor men be just” to him. Through his frustration, he only accomplishes revenge after determining he cannot achieve it through God’s will. Through Kyd’s characterization of Hieronimo and his inability to seek legal revenge, Kyd channels Elizabethan audiences’ potential frustration at the time.
As The Spanish Tragedy laid the framework for Elizabethan revenge tragedy, it influenced the works of Shakespeare and Middleton. For example, Shakespeare’s first revenge tragedy, Titus Andronicus (c. 1590-93), presents a more gruesome storyline that channels the original Senecan drama. Given the injustices performed by the heads of the English court, Shakespeare highlights both the ineffective judicial system and flaws in the distribution of power. Derek Dunne discusses how Titus Andronicus comments on the failing judicial system of Elizabethan England: “Titus Andronicus responds perceptively to the dangers of a weakened jury, in particular the jury’s role as interpreter of the available evidence” (50). Just as Titus’ oldest sons face baseless accusations for a murder they did not commit, the existing Elizabethan English system did not rely on concrete evidence and allowed for incorrect court rulings. Titus Andronicus allows for a dramatized scenario that further explores the threat of the ineffective judicial system of sixteenth-century England. In the play, equilibrium and satisfying the need for retribution are attained after much suffering and death. Kenji Yoshino discusses the consequences of pursuing private revenge: “Titus is representative of Elizabethan revenge tragedy in depicting wild justice as the natural choice, but a choice that necessarily dooms the revenger and his society” (209). As Titus accomplishes revenge, he and many others face their gruesome execution. A practical and unbiased justice system would have prevented multiple unnecessary deaths. In these ways, Titus Andronicus is a hyperbolized depiction of the consequence of a weak judicial system, including that of Elizabethan England.
Shakespeare’s revenge tragedy Hamlet can be seen to criticize English law, as well. Thomas Regnier notes that the “law of the foreign setting may be a factor in some plays, but most of the legal rules and jargon are from English law” (108). Throughout Hamlet, there are various instances of legal terminology and ideas, including both statutory and common law of England. Specifically, when considering the law of suicide or Hamlet’s property, “Hamlet contains legal issues that parallel watershed events, particularly [those] that concerned homicide and property law” (Regnier 107). Understanding the connection between English law and Hamlet, despite the difference in setting, is pivotal in deciphering Shakespeare’s political commentary against the increasingly unstable power dynamic in Elizabethan England. Queen Elizabeth I held a close connection with Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, and Leicester’s Commonwealth (1584), a possibly libelous criticism of Dudley, speculated that he had poisoned individuals in order to get closer to the crown. Regnier discusses the possibility of a real-life Claudius that inspired Hamlet: “Might Leicester thus be a partial model for King Claudius, who poisons his brother to gain the crown?” (124). It is compelling enough to consider that Shakespeare may have written Hamlet as a political statement against the acts that occurred in the Elizabethan court. Nevertheless, Shakespeare repeatedly integrates the idea of injustice due to a power dynamic and failing judicial system.
From the beginning of Middleton’s The Revenger’s Tragedy, it is evident that an injustice has been committed at the highest levels. In the first five lines, Vindice says, “Duke, royal lecher. Go, grey-haired adultery; / And thou his son, as impious steeped as he; / And thou his bastard, true-begot in evil; / And thou his duchess, that will do with the devil. / Four exc’llent characters” (1.1.1-5). Vindice explicitly expresses his hatred for these characters and provides instant background on his motive for revenge. Middleton similarly shows how private revenge decreases the value of justice: “The play’s sententious moralizing thus serves as a kind of debased currency of moral commentary in an immoral society, similar in this respect to the way private vengeance serves as a debased form of justice” (Engle 1300). Although private revenge did not necessarily achieve justice, it was the only manner of attaining a form of retribution in a weakened judicial system. The Revenger’s Tragedy emphasizes a corruption within the court system that consequently prevents justice from occurring in an organic and public manner. Middleton, like Kyd, strategically places the weight of initial crime on court members, such as the Duke, perhaps as a political statement against England’s failing judicial system.
The social and political climate in Elizabethan and Jacobean England created a collective sentiment within the audience against the judicial system. As revenge tragedies thrived, they increasingly offered an outlet that illustrated justice against high society members. Due to English classism, however, justice was unattainable for many in the early modern period, as the court often disregarded the common class. The plays of Thomas Kyd, William Shakespeare, and Thomas Middleton contemplate the consequences of private revenge and established not only an outlet for Elizabethan and Jacobean audiences but also a relationship for those who experienced injustice.
Works Cited
Bate, Jonathan, editor. Titus Andronicus by William Shakespeare. Arden Shakespeare, 2018.
Calvo, Carla, and Jesus Tronch, editors. The Spanish Tragedy by Thomas Kyd. Arden Shakespeare, 2013.
Dunne, Derek. Shakespeare, Revenge Tragedy and Early Modern Law: Vindictive Justice.Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
Engle, Lars. Introduction to “The Revenger’s Tragedy.” English Renaissance Drama: a Norton Anthology, David Bevington, et al, editors, Norton, 2003, pp. 1297-1302.
The Geneva Bible: A Facsmile of the 1590 Edition. The Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/TheGenevaBible1560.
Lavery, Hannah. “Hamlet and Elizabethan England.” OpenLearn, The Open University, 1 Mar. 2019, www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/culture/literature-and-creative- writing/literature/hamlet-and-elizabethan-england.
Neill, Michael. “English Revenge Tragedy.” A Companion to Tragedy, edited by Rebecca Bushnell, Blackwell, 2005, pp. 328–349.
Minton, Gretchen, editor. The Revenger’s Tragedy by Thomas Middleton, Arden Shakespeare, 2018.
Pollard, Tanya. “Tragedy and Revenge.” The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Tragedy, edited by Emma Smith and Garrett A. Sullivan, Jr, Cambridge UP, 2010, pp. 58–72.
Regnier, Thomas. “The Law in Hamlet: Death, Property, and the Pursuit of Justice.” Brief Chronicles, III, 2011, pp. 107–132, shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/09/briefchronicles-3.pdf.
Seneca. “Thyestes.” Six Tragedies, translated by Emily Watson, Oxford UP, 2010.
Semenza, Gregory M. Colon. “The Spanish Tragedy and Revenge.” Early Modern English Drama: A Critical Companion, edited by Garrett A. Sullivan, Patrick Cheney and Andrew Hadfield, Oxford UP, 2006, pp. 50-60.
Thompson, Ann, and Neil Taylor, editors. Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Arden Shakespeare, 2016.
Yoshino, Kenji. “Revenge as Revenant: Titus Andronicus and the Rule of Law.” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, vol. 21, no. 2, Jan. 2009, digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1346&context=yjlh.
Winston, Jessica. “Seneca in Early Elizabethan England.” Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 59, no. 1, 2006, pp. 29–59. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1353/ren.2008.0232.
[1] According to Hannah Lavery, “Quite apart from the threats to public order presented by an individual seeking justice for themselves, such actions presented both a theoretical and a literal challenge to Elizabeth I’s legislative bodies.” Despite the Tudor monarchy’s attempts to centralize power, private revenge continually occurred throughout England.
[2] For the biblical prohibition of private revenge, see Deut. 32:35 and Rom. 12:19: “Dearely beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord.”
[3] Dunne cites Fredson Bowers, Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy, 1587-1642, Princeton, 1940, p.11.