Justice delays revenge-The Spanish Tragedy and revenge tradition

Jastics Delays’

Rsveüge-. ■ C i l 1X1

a i - . : .

Justice Delays Re v eng e-

The Spanish Tragedy and R evenge Tradition

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Letters

and the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences of Bilkent U niversity

in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in

English Language and Literature

ta _«4^^

by

Erhan Kukner September, 1991

PR.

Л.65'4

S 6 3

We certify that we have read t his thesis and that in our combined opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Ma s t e r of Arts.

A s s t .P r o f .D r . Hamit Çal ışkan (A d v i s o r )

y ■'·

L

Prof.Dr. Bülent Bozkurt (Committee Member)

' ^ 1

Dr. Laurence A. Raw

Approved for the

Institute of Economics and Social Sciences

A b s t r a c t Justice Delays R evenge-

The Spanish T r agedy and Re v eng e Tr adition Erhan Kükner

M.A. In English Literature

Advisor: Asst.Prof-Dr. H a m i t Çalışkan

September, 1991

The Spanish T r a g e d v . one of the best e xa m p l e s of

English Renaissance drama, contributed towar ds the

establishment of the revenge tragedy genre, w hich gained

popularity in the years to come. Kyd in this play not only

indicates that when the law is unjust, man will resort to

revenge; but also demonstrates that a citizen should obey the

ruler and regard revenge as a revolt against the state. Tl-is

play tells the story of Hieronimo, who expects the murderer^

of his son to be punished. However, H ie ronim o gradually

discovers that the institutions of justice are useless and

therefore takes revenge. His belief in justice and religious

ban on revenge prevent him from taking his revenge. To e m p h asize this point this thesis will focus on the tradition of revenge; point out the connection between the k i n g ’s authori ty and revenge; and demonstrate how Hier o n i mo takes revenge.

ö z e t

Adaletin İntikamı G e ç i kt irmes i- The Spanish Tragedy ve i ntikam Geleneği

Erhan Kükner

İngiliz Edebiyatı Y ü k s e k Lisans

Tez Yöneticisi: Yard.Doç.Dr. Hami t Çalı şka n

Eylül, 1991

İngiliz Rönesans tiyatrosunun en iyi ö rnek l e r i n d e n biri olan The Spanish Tragedy daha s on r a çok popüler olan

intikam trajedisi geleneğinin yerleşm esi ne katkıda bulunan

oyunlardan biridir. Bu oyunda Kyd, haksızlık karş ısı nda bireyin

intikam alacağını göstermekle kalmayıp, krala tam itaat ve

intikamın devlete başkaldırı olarak görülmesi üzerinde de

durmaktadır. Oyun oğlunun katillerinin cez alandırılmasını

isteyen H i e r o n i m o ’nun öyküsünü anlatmaktadır; ancak H i e r o n i m o zamanla adalet kurumunun işlemediğini farkeder ve suçluları

kendisi cezai a n d ı r ı r . H i e r o n i m o ’nun adalete olan inancı ve

Hıristiyan dininin intikamı yasaklaması onun bu kararı

almasını geciktirir. Bu görüşün irdelenmesi a çısından önce

intikam geleneği, daha sonra kralın otoritesi ve intikam

arasındaki ilişki ve son olarak da H i e r o n i m o ’nun intikam alış biçimi tezde incelenmiştir.

I am grateful to my advisor A s s t . Prof .Dr Hamit Çalışkan and the committee members for their guidance, understa ndi ng and

Table of Con t e n ts

Chapter

I. Introduction

II. Blood Revenge Tradition

III. Prohibition of Revenge

Page

IV. H i e r o n i m o ’s Delayed Revenge 13

V. Conclusion 27

Notes 29

Works Cited 32

Chapter I Introduction

T h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n b l o o d r e v e n g e t r a d i t i o n and ap p l i ca t i o n of justice has always been a topical subject and has taken a crucial place in the cultures of most societies. In the past, revenge was considered a way of enforcing justice, but it was outlawed when societies and governments attempted to as s e r t their authority.

The main concern of the writers of Elizabethan revenge t r agedy was to show the consequences arising from the rule of

1

an unjust monarch. The Spanish Tragedy is one of the best

examp l es of revenge tragedy from the 1570s/1580s. In this play

the forced revenger Hieronimo is faced with an impossible

confl i ct of values. On the one hand, the tradition of revenge

e n c ou r ag e s him to take revenge without hesitation; on the other hand, devoted to the application of law, he is aware that revenge represents a rebellion against a divinely ordered society.

This thesis contends that H i e r o n i m o ’s belief in human

and divine justice delays his revenge. In the second chapter,

the traditions of English revenge and the Elizabethan idea of revenge are outlined, to illustrate why Hieronimo believes that revenge is solely for the punishment of villains. The third chapter outlines the prohibition of revenge in relation to rebellion against the king, and the religious injunction of revenge, in order to show why these bans are so effective: Hie r o n i m o cannot choose between taking revenge and waiting for

justice. In the fourth chapter, I will focus on H i e r o n i m o ’s dilemma, and how he un dergoes a radical change of heart and takes his revenge.

Blood Revenge Tradition

Altho ug h blood revenge had been forbidden since the

A n g l o -S a x o n period, it was still practised during the

Elizabethan era. This deep-rooted custom, which provided a

quick and definitive solution to a quarrel was regarded as just. In fact, the c o n c e p t of blo o d r e v e n g e a s s u m e d an e x t r e m e l y important position in English history, and its origins dates back to the early Anglo-Saxon period.

F r e d s o n B o w e r s in his E l i z a b e t h a n R e v e n g e T r a g e d y

a r g u e s t h a t d u r i n g t h i s t i m e , b l o o d r e v e n g e w a s n o t

considered a crime against the state, for the state did not exist

as an institution. In fact, blood revenge "...was the mightiest,

1

the only possible form in which a wrong could be righted." In this case, one individual had to be stronger than his opponent. When a member of a family was murdered:

...the i nj u r e d fami 1y . . . [ d i d ] n ot s e e k o u t and

punish the actual murderer. The solidarity of

the fami 1y ...[was] so strongly felt that it sufficed for any member to kill any other representative

2

of the m u r d e r e r ’s family.

And since there were no laws preventing revenge, the revenger w a s not p u n i s h e d .

The A n glo-Saxons established the traditions of feuding, fighting for a private quarrel, and integrated them into the w e r g e l d Cone of the earliest English laws), which forced

the criminal and his fam i l y to pay a certain amount of money

to t h e f a m i l y of t h e o f f e n d e d . T h e d e c i s i o n w a s at the

d i s c r e t i o n of the f a m i l y ; t h e y e i t h e r c h o s e to f i g h t or 3

co l l e ct the money. Once the Anglo-Saxon kings had

es t a b l i s h e d their a u t h or i t y however, they banned feuds because they con s i d e r ed them a potential threat to their supremacy. Moreover, they demanded an equal share from w e r g e l d . which

e m p ha s i z e d "...the idea that an offense against another subject 4

w a s an o f f e n s e a g a i n s t t h e k i n g and s t a t e . "

However, these develo p m e n t s did not stop the practice of b l o o d reven ge . W i l l i a m t h e C o n q u e r o r e s t a b l i s h e d c e r t a i n statutes which presented the option of fighting with the offender, or putting him on trial:

The whole procedure was so slipshod, however,

t h a t t h e m u r d e r e r s t o o d an e v e n c h a n c e of 5

escaping punishment completely.

It was not until the early sixteenth century that, Henry VII created the basics of modern prosecution by introducing

indictment (accusation of a criminal by the nearest relatives

of the murdered). This prohibited blood revenge and penalized

6

those who resorted to it as severely as possible.

In the Elizabethan period, although the processes of law worked effectively, (Queen Elizabeth herself set an example by r e -e s tablishing frien dl y relationships between her courtiers, or punishing the parties involved in a q u a r r e l ) the tradition of

7 revenge continued:

In spite of the fact that justice was the sole prerogative of the Elizabethan state, with any e n c r o a c h m e n t on i t s n e w l y w o n p r i v i l e g e

li a bl e to s e v e r e p u n i s h m e n t , the s p i r i t of r e v e n g e h a d s c a r c e l y d e c l i n e d in E l i z a b e t h a n ti mes....The right to punish their own wrongs was dear to many Elizabethans, who did not

approve the interpretation of premeditated 8 malice put by the law upon their revenges.

In most cases the Elizabethans took revenge by means of duels, which themselves provided a justification for blood revenge. F r e d s o n B o w e r s o u t l i n e s the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n d u e l s and r e v e n g e :

(1) If there were no duels, all persons would draw their swords who have an interest in the

i n j u r e d p e r s o n ’s h o n o r [i.e. c o l l e c t i v e revenge]; (2) The fear of damnation keeps men from indulging in unjust quarrels; (3) If an act is lawful for many, it is lawful for one: armies challenge one another and so should individuals; (4) Since laws value private honor no farther than concerns the public safety, the individual must revenge his own dishonor; (5) The laws of knighthood bind all men to revenge an injury; (6) Since no one shall judge of honor but him who has it, the judges of civil courts (who are

base in their origin) are unfitted for the

duty; (7) Soldiers are reasonable men, yet we condemn a custom which they have brought in and authorized; (8) Many murders are committed which are undiscovered by law; if private men were allowed to punish these with the sword, murders

9 would decrease.

T h e r e w e r e o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s in w h i c h r e v e n g e c o u l d be

p e rceived as justified. It was permissible in situations

w h e r e t h e r e w a s no a u t h o r i t y to r e s t o r e t he h o n o r of the

o f f e n d e d . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , r e v e n g e c o u l d be t a k e n w h e n no

10

clear evide n c e was found to sue the responsible party.

Although blood revenge was strictly forbidden and punished in the Elizabethan period, it was often exercised when justice was not meted out.

This tradition provided the inspiration for several plays-

Thomas Kyd makes use of it in The Spanish T r a g e d y .

By putting Hier o n i mo into a position where he is forced to make a choice between revenge and legal and divine punishments, Kyd asserts that this tradition cannot be eliminated.

Pr o hi b i t i o n of Revenge

C h a p t e r III

In t h e E l i z a b e t h a n p e r i o d t h e legal p r o h i b i t i o n of revenge was directly related to the authority of the Queen,

and revenge was deemed to be a rebellion against her. The

r e a s o n s f o r t h i s o r i g i n a t e d in t h e n o t i o n of t he m o n a r c h a s su m i n g total authority, and the way she used it.

In t h e M i d d l e Ages, the n o b l e s w e r e g i v e n t h e

re s p o n s i b i l it y for providing security and peace in their domains. As the power of the monarch declined, so they gained total

control of their lands and often ignored the central governments,

who w ere unable to collect taxes. Consequently, they started to

sell the crown lands to the nobles and the church. However,the social c h anges of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries put an

e nd to t h i s s t a t e of af f a i r s . M o s t p e o p l e ( e x c l u d i n g t h e

nobles), favou re d monarchical power, because they perceived the

central g o v e rn m e n t as the only institution which could

e l i m i n a t e the oppression of the local authorities, controlled

by the nobles. The middle class, in particular, believed that

p r o s pe r it y lay in a stable government. After a violent conflict, the p o w e r of the local a u t h o r i t i e s w a s d i s m a n t l e d a n d the

mo n ar c h reassumed his authority. Nonetheless, the problem of

1

the church still had to be overcome.

H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h e c h u r c h h a d a l w a y s r e j e c t e d t h e

a u t h or i ty of the king. However, the church gradually lost its

8

church. During the same period new ideas as to the sovereignty

of the church emerged. It was believed that God had chosen the mos t s u i t a b l e person to rule on earth-therefore the king was

not r e s p o n s i b l e to t h e church. S u c h v i e w s e s t a b l i s h e d t h e

di v in e right of kings, reinforced their authority and made it

irrefutable. For instance, in his much debated book,(which

was w i d e l y read in the Elizabethan period) The Prince

(1513-14), N i c c o l o Machiavelli suggests that no matter how an

ecclesi as t i ca l p r incipality is acquired ,the king does not have to wor ry about his authority, and his subjects do not have the

right to rebel against him. The king is invested with power

2

by God and this is ab s olutely indisputable. Similarly, in

The Book Named The G o v e r n o r (1531). Thomas Elyot insists on unconditional obedience to monarchical authority of the king

and mak e s it clear that: "...disloyalty or treason seldom

3 es c a p e t h great vengeance [from God]."

The authority of the king had been established after a long s tr u g g l e with the nobles and the church; to sustain this a u t h o r i t y , e v e r y p o t e n t i a l a r e a of r e s i s t a n c e w a s b r u t a l l y

s u p p r e s s e d . The c r i m e of r e v e n g e ( w h i c h w a s c o n s i d e r e d

t a n t a m o u n t to rebellion), carried the worst penalty.

A t the s ame t i m e t h e k i n g h ad to be j u s t in his d e c i s i o n s and b e h a v i o u r ; t h i s w a s a d v o c a t e d in s e v e r a l

treatises. For instance, in his second book. The Discourses

(1513-19), Machiavelli suggests that it is a very baleful thing for kings :

...to keep the minds of their subjects in suspense and fear by continually inflicting p u ni shment and giving offence. Than this there is unquestionably no practice more pernicious. For w h e n m e n begin to s u s p e c t t h a t evil m a y befall them, they take any means to protect

4 themselves and grow more bold....

In T h e B o o k N a m e d T h e G o v e r n o r E l y o t a s s e r t s t h a t althou g h the kings derive their power from God, this does not mean that they are free to execute justice according to their

own ideas and pleasures. They should look after the rights of

their subjects, because God shows mercy towards them, whereas 5

he always observes the justness of the powerful. If those who

are in charge of justice find that their subordinates are not fulf i l in g their duties, they should make an example of

them-6

this may pr e v en t others from becoming corrupt. Such notions

assume p a r t i c ul a r importance in The Spanish T r a g e d y .

However, the idea of a just king was mainly confined t o b o o k s ; by c o n t r a s t t h e f e a r of p o s s i b l e t r o u b l e s , whic h could be brought about by an unjust king, continued to d om i na t e Elizabethan England.

R e c e n t historians have asserted that this period was

one of c o n s i d e ra b l e disorder, arising from the continual threat 7 of civil and religious wars, or foreign invasion and conquest. In the face of such dangers, the Queen gradually asserted her auth or i ty by el i mi nating her opponents and strengthening

10

t h e legal s y st e m . In t h i s c o n t e x t , r e v e n g e w a s c e r t a i n l y

c o n s idered unlawful:

Elizabethan law felt itself capable of meting out justice to murderers, and therefore punished an avenger who took justice into his own hands just

as h e a v i l y as t h e o r i g i n a l m u r d e r e r . T h e

a u t h o r i t i e s , c o n s c i o u s of t h e E l i z a b e t h a n

i n h e r i t a n c e of p r i v a t e j u s t i c e f r o m e a r l i e r

ages, recognized that their own times still held the possibilities of serious turmoil; and they were determined that private revenge should not

8 unleash a general disrespect for law.

Her a uthority was strengthened through the assistance of the

Anglican Church. Several homilies published during this period

urged people to obey the ruler; the "First Part of the Sermon of

Obedience" declared that God had created the universe and

appointed Queen Elizabeth as his vice-regent on earth. Her

counsel had to be followed:

Let us c o n s i d e r the S c r i p t u r e s of the H o l y Ghost, which persuade and command us all

o b e d i e n t l y to be s u b j ect, f i r s t and c h i e f l y to the Q u e e n ’s Majesty, Supreme Governor over all, and next to her honourable counsel, and to all other noblemen, magistrates, and officers, which by G o d ’s goodness be placed and ordered. The second part of the sermon argued that the rulers had to be

1 1

obeyed; it was not important whether they were good or bad, because an evil ruler might have been chosen to punish the past evil deeds of people. To justify this view, Jesus Christ

and his f o llowers was cited as an example. Although they

suffered from the rulers, they obeyed them, for they knew that 10

such rulers had been appointed by God. The third part of the

sermon forbade any act of disobedience against a ruler:

T h e v i o l e n c e a n d i n j u r y t h a t is c o m m i t t e d against authority is committed against God,

11 the common w e a l , and the whole r e a l m . ...

Despite the p r o f i 1eration of treatises during this period, there was an increasing awareness-especially amongst intellectuals-

of the potential of individual self-determination. Even in the

fourteenth century, the corruption of the church and clergy had enabled the middle class to lead a relatively secular life, and d i s believe the tenets of Christianity-particularly the su b jection of o n e ’s will to religious authorities. The coming of the Re n a i s s a n ce gave rise to the belief in individuality and the

reasoning power of man. A Renaissance man was no longer interested

in the other world; but was keen to study religious texts; to

investigate the reasons behind religious prohibitions; and test

them a g ainst his own views. While the Protestant Reformation

claimed that religion was an entirely personal affair (which did not need the intercession of the church), the sixteenth century man believed that he was ca pable of ignoring religious strictures

12

when faced with the decision of whether or not to take revenge. This particular way of reasoning also conflicted with the notion whi c h came directly from God, and which assumed as much s i g n i f i c a n c e as the authority of the king h i m s e l f ;"Vengeance is

12

mine, and I will r e w a r d . ” Murder according to the Elizabethan

h o m i li e s meant eternal damnation; consequently several of them s t i p ul a t e d that no one, but the king was permitted to execute a wrongdoer:

And the places of Scripture which seem to remove from among all Christian men judgment,

punishment, or killing, ought to be understand, that no man of his own private authority may be j u d g e o v e r other, may p u n i s h , or may kill, but we m u s t refer all j u d g m e n t to God, to kings and rulers, and judges under them, which be G o d ’s officers to execute justice, and by plain words of Scripture have their authority

13 and use of the sword granted from God....

It was clear that, the fundamental piece of advice offered by the homil i e s was that when o n e ’s relatives had been murdered, one was to pray to God and wait patiently for the murderer to be punished.

13

C h apter IV

H i e r o n i m o ’s Delayed Revenge

The Spanish Tragedy can be considered a revenge tragedy through its use of "blood-vengeance as the core of its

1

drama t ic action." On the other hand, Martin S. Day directly relates the play to Renaissance ideas of individualism. It:

. . . m a t u r e s f r o m its s i m p l e o r i g i n i n t o a psychological and philosophical analysis of the

h u ma n s i t u a t i o n . The a v e n g e r is n o t a m e r e

feudist but a Renaissance humanist confronted 2

with basic moral and spiritual questions.

In the play Kyd depicts what happens if an unjust monarch provokes an individual to take revenge into his own hands. The

central protagonist, Hieronimo, finds it extremely difficult

to resort to revenge, as he knows that it is an offence against

God and the king. Consequently, he waits for legal and human

jus t ic e to be executed; in the end, however, he discovers that both are non-existent. As we have seen from the previous chapter, such questions of whether to submit to monarchical authority, or assert o n e ’s individuality, were particularly topical at this t i m e .

Kyd makes use of a familiar convention at the beginning of the play, with the appearance of the ghost of Andrea and

Revenge. Such conventions (which would be used later on in plays

such as H a m l e t ) suggest that an injustice has been committed and that disaster might follow. Although Revenge explains that

they ( i.e.Andrea and himself) w o n ’t do anything but "...serve

for Chorus ...." (I.i.91), he reveals that Andrea has been

bro u g h t back to see if his lover Bel-imperia will take revenge on his murderer.

It is clear that the possibility of revenge exists in this society, as the authority of the king is corrupt. This is revealed in the second scene, when we learn that the King of Spain did not command his army in the war with the Portuguese; and

that he has no idea as to the winner of the war until the general

informs him. Although not directly influenced by Machiavelli,

it is clear that Kyd rehearses some of his arguments. In The

Prince Machiavelli claims that:

A prince, therefore, should have no other object or thought, nor acquire skill in anything, except

war, its organization, and its discipline. The

art of war is all that is expected of a ruler;

a n d it is s o u s e f u l t h a t b e s i d e s e n a b l i n g h e r e d i t a r y p r i n c e s to m a i n t a i n t h e i r rule it frequently enables ordinary citizens to become

rulers. On the other hand, we find that princes

who have th ought more of their pleasures than of

arms have lost their states. The first way to

lose your state is to neglect the art of war;

the first way to win a state is to be skilled in the art of w a r . . . . S o a p r i n c e w h o d o e s n o t u n d e r s t a n d w a r f a r e , as w e l l as t h e o t h e r m isfortunes he invites, cannot be respected by

15

his soldiers or place any trust in them.

When the king learns that his army has won the war, he thanks God for his justness, in an attempt to suggest that God is always on the side of the monarch, and that the divine right

of kings is indisputable: "Then blest be heaven, and guider of

the heavens, / From whose fair influence such justice flows"

(I.ii.10-1). However, this does not justify his refusal to

fi g h t - c l e a r ly he is either too cowardly or more interested in

wealth than in the lives and security of his people. He is

ready to ignore the war altogether once he receives the tribute from the Portuguese king:

Now lordings fall to, Spain is Portugal, And Portugal is Spain, we both are friends,

T r i b u t e is p a i d , a n d w e e n j o y o u r r i g h t . (I .iv.132-4)

A n o t h e r aspect of the k i n g ’s corrupt authority is his

pa r tiality towards his relatives. Although the general tells

him that H o ra t i o has captured Balthazar in battle, the king

ignores this fact; and instead of giving the ransom for the capture of Balthazar to Horatio, he divides it between Horatio

and Lorenzo. When Lorenzo sees that he has received equal

treatment, he immediately considers Horatio his enemy.

Wh i l e Spain has been at war with Portugal, the King of S p a i n h i m s e l f h a s m i s u s e d h i s a u t h o r i t y f o r h i s

personal interest. In the third scene we see that the King of

16

d e f e a t (I .i i i .5-42). H o w e v e r , w h e n t h e K i n g of P o r t u g a l a t t e m p t s to investigate the reason why he did not fight, we are c l e a r l y invited to believe that his explanation is meaningless. Like the King of Spain he has not been involved in any bloodshed; as a king he should have fought at the head of his army instead of evading the battle.

In the meantime, it turns out that the King of Portugal is m ore unjust than the King of Spain. When Villuppo accuses A l e x a n d r o of cooperating w ith the enemy, and shooting Balthazar

in the back, the King of Portugal refuses to give Alexandro any cha n c e to refute this ac c u sation against him, and instantly sends him to prison.

In Act 3, Scene 2, the King of Portugal still objects to w h a t has happened to Alexandro, and thus decides on his e x e c u t i o n :

No more Villuppo, thou hast said enough. And with thy words thou s l a y ’st our wounded t h o u g h t s .

Nor shall I longer dally with the world. P ro c r a s t i n a ti n g A l e x a n d r e ’s death:

Go some of you and fetch the traitor forth. That as he is condemned he may die.

( I l l .i .25-30)

This king, likewise departs from the model of the ideal mon a r c h outlined by Machiavelli, who suggests that a king is e v a l u a t e d by the men he rules. If he n e g l e c t s h is d u t i e s .

17

qu estions will be raised as to his suitability to rule:

The c h o o s i n g of m i n i s t e r s is a m a t t e r of no little importance for a prince; and their worth depends on the sagacity of the prince himself. The first opinion that is formed of a r u l e r ’s

intelligence is based on the quality of the men

he has around him. When they are competent and

loyal he can always be considered wise, because he has been able to recognize their competence a n d t o k e e p t h e m l o y a l . B u t w h e n t h e y a r e otherwise, the prince is always open to adverse criticism; because his first mistake has been in

4 the choice of his ministers.

The Portuguese king lacks the ability to make wise decisions

for the good of his country. While Machiavelli argues that

even if a k i n g ’s intelligence is limited, this may not be a pr oblem (if he" has the discernment to recognize the good or

5

bad in what another says and does"), the Portuguese king does

not e v e n p o s s e s s this q u a l i t y . H i s l ack of i n t e l l i g e n c e

brings about his c o u n t r y ’s ruin.

By creating two unjust and inadequate kings, who do not deserve their high office, Kyd suggests that the countries

themselves are heading for disaster. If a king (the person

who is at the top of an autocracy), misuses his power, then the

belief in his sovereignty will be subject to question. He

18

a d i s o r d e r e d nation.

This disorder is evident in the Castile family who dev i s e str a t e gi e s to a c h i e v e their self-interested aims.

Bel-im p e r ia , ( w h o is described by Philip Edwards as "...a woman of

6

strong will, and not a little c o u r a g e . . . . ” ), continues her

r el a t i o n s h i p with A n d r e a in defiance of her father, who

requires her to marry Balthazar. This marriage is clearly

political, allowing the King of Spain to forge an alliance with

the King of Portugal. By contrast, Bel-imperia wishes to take

revenge on Balthazar in Act I, as she believes that he has

m ur d e r e d her lover Andrea. Finally, in the play within the

p l a y s h e m a n a g e s to kill B a l t h a z a r .

A n other member of the family with the same passion is

Lorenzo, who unh es i t a ti n gl y murders Horatio. Bowers argues that

his villa i n y 1 ies in:

... his ruthlessness toward all who stand in the way of his plans, in his perfect indifference to the s u f f e r i n g s he c a u s e s o t h e r s , in his m a n i a for secrecy and willingness to employ other men as catspaws, and in the tortuous and deceitful

7 means he uses to attain his ends.

L o r e n z o has t w o m a j o r r e a s o n s for k i l l i n g H o r a t i o . Firstly, he thinks that he has been humiliated by H o r a t i o ’s

c a p t u r i n g of B a l t h a z a r , (1 1 . i v .60-1 ). S e c o n d l y , he s e e s

H o r a t i o as a real threat to the royal marriage. If Horatio

19

of Spain and Portugal will not only fail, but Horatio will ac h i e ve w e a l t h and power.

It is clear that such a family will cause disaster for

the S panish nation; this is also true for Portugal. Balthazar,

t he f u t u r e l ea d e r of P o r t u g a l , k n o w s v e r y well t h a t B e l -

imperia will not marry him:

My feature is not to content her sight. My words are rude and work her no delight. The lines I send her are but harsh and ill, Such as do drop from Pan and M a r s y a s ’ quill. My presents are not of sufficient cost.

And being worthless all my l ab our ’s lost. ( I I . i .13-18)

Moreover, he is also aware that if he kills Horatio, this will d e f in i te l y damage his relationship with her:

Glad, that I know on w hom to be r e v e n g ’d, Sad, that s h e ’ll fly me if I take revenge. Yet must I take revenge or die myself.

For love resisted grows impatient. (II.i.114-7)

Yet, he still wants to woo Bel-imperia, even if it costs

H o r a t i o ’s life: "But in his fall I ’ll tempt the destinies, /

And either lose my life, or win my love" (I I . i .132-3).

When these so-called rulers are compared with Hieronimo, it is c l e a r t h a t H i e r o n i m o and h i s p e e r s a r e t h e f o r c e s of s t a bi l it y who attempt to maintain order in Spain. Hieronimo e x e m p l i f i e s the p e r f e c t o f f i c i a l a n d c i t i z e n d e s c r i b e d by

20

Machi a v e l 1 i :

...a man entrusted with the task of government should never think of himself but of the prince, and should never concern himself with anything

8

except the p r i n c e ’s affairs.

He is even ready to sacrifice Horatio, if Horatio acts against the king: "Long may he live to serve my sovereign liege, / And

soon decay unless he serve my liege" (I.ii.98-9). As Hieronimo

is the Knight Marshal of Spain, he believes in his king and the doctr i n e of the divine right of kings-which advocates monarchical supremacy, even if the ruler himself is unfit for

the task. Through this Kyd shows the inadequacies of an

u nq u estioning acceptance of the belief in divine right. Hier o ni m o (being unaware of the k i n g ’s true nature), expects the mu rderers of his son to be punished by the processes of law:

"To know the author were some ease of grief, / For in

revenge my heart would find relief" (II.v.40-1). At this

stage it is rightly argued by Hamit Çalışkan that by"revenge" H i e r o ni m o means legal action, for he is not aware of the

9

m u r d e r e r s ’ identities. Likewise, his wife maintains an

absolute confidence in human and divine justice:

The heavens are just, murder cannot be hid. Time is the author both of truth and right.

And time will bring this treachery to light. (II.V.57-9)

21

ju s t i c e to be applied immediately. He blames the heavens; and by doing so d em o n s tr a te s that he cannot help thinking of r e v e n g e :

O sacred heavens! if this u n h all ow’d deed, If this inhuman and barbarous attempt, If this incomparable murder thus Of mine, but now no more my son.

Shall u n r e v e a l ’d and unrevenged pass.

How should we term your dealings to be just.

If you u n j u s t l y deal w i t h t h o s e t h a t in y o u r justice trust? (I I I .i i .5-11)

H i eronimo upholds the legal processes of justice; if he were a revenger, he w o u l d n ’t wait until he had found evidence to support B e l - i m p e r i a ’s accusations that he was not taking the

t a s k of r e v e n g e in A c t 3, S c e n e 2. H o w e v e r , H i e r o n i m o

c ontinues to procrastinate; as he does so, his confidence in the power of legal forces of justice starts to waver:

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? ( I l l . v i .5-7)

He does not receive any justice for the murder of his son; and this leads him to believe that it is inaccessible: " But they are p l a c ’d in those empyreal heights / Where, co unt e r m u r ’d with

wal l s of diamond, " ( I I I . v i i .15-6). Once Pedr ing ano’s letter

22

are di s p e l l e d about the identities of the murderers. Although H i e r o n i m o ’s hatred is implacable and his faith in human and d i v i n e j u s t i c e has been questioned, he does not choose to take revenge, on account of his fidelity to the king. He decides to ob t a i n j u s t i ce from him at any cost;

I will go plain me to my lord the king.

And cry aloud for justice through the court, Wearing the flints with these my w i t h e r ’d feet, And either purchase justice by entreats

Or tire t h e m all w i t h my r e v e n g i n g t h r e a t s . ( I l l . v i i .69-73)

At the same time, as a result of his frustrations-having to conceal H o r a t i o ’s body, knowing the m u r d e r e r ’s identities, yet being unable to obtain ju s t i c e and witnessing the mental torture of his wif e -H i e r on im o starts to lose his self-control. He d i s cl o se s his intense hatred for Lorenzo when he is asked the location of L o r e n z o ’s house:

There, in a brazen cauldron f i x ’d by Jove In his fell wrath upon a sulphur flame. Yourselves shall find Lorenzo bathing him

In b o i l i n g l e a d a n d b l o o d of i n n o c e n t s . ( I l l . x i .26-9)

Finally, H i e r o n i m o ’s mind turns toward a cerberean justice,

wh ich could be enacted, if the king fails to listen to his words: Hieronimo, ’tis time for thee to trudge:

23

Down by the dale that flows with purple gore, Standeth a fiery tower: there sits a judge Upon a seat of steel and molten brass,

And ’twixt his teeth he holds a firebrand.

That leads unto the lake where hell doth stand. Away, Hieronimo, to him be gone:

H e ’ ll d o t h e e j u s t i c e f o r H o r a t i o ’s d e a t h . (I I I . xi i .6-13)

This is the point whe r e the individuality of Hieronimo e m erges and his belief in k i n g ’s authority is seen to be

losing its validity. This rehearses a conflict of values that

we looked at in the previ o u s chapter, particularly with regard

to the Re n a i s sa n c e man. Such ideas affect his mental faculties

so much that he is unable to prevent Lorenzo from foiling his

plans for o btaining justice from the king. Hieronimo starts

to dig the floor in an attempt to bring Horatio back, and openly says that he will take revenge:

And here surrender up my marshalship:

For I ’ll go marshal up the fiends in hell. To be avenged on you all for this.

(Ill.xi i .76-8)

Once again we see that the Spanish king lacks the qualities of a good and just king to such an extent that he fails to pay attention to his Knight Marshal, (who is behaving most weirdly), and o v e rl o o k s L o r e n z o ’s evasive answer when he asks the reason behind H i e r o n i m o ’s behaviour (I I I .x i i .85-9).

24

It is clear that H ieronimo has already decided to take revenge for a number of reasons: Philip Edwards outlines t hem succintly:

(i) R e v e n g e will bring h i m e m o t i o n a l r e l i e f ; (ii) it is a duty; (iii) a life for a life is the law of nature, and (iv) is, in society, the

10 legal penalty for murder.

However, H i e r o n i m o ’s religious beliefs still prevent him from carrying out his task:

Vindicta mi hi!

Ay, heaven will be r e v e n g ’d of every ill. Nor will they suffer murder unrepaid: Then stay, Hieronimo, attend their will.

For mortal m e n may n ot a p p o i n t t h e i r time. (Ill .xi i i .1-5)

Yet, H i e r o n i mo suddenly decides to take revenge (III.x iii .7-11) This abrupt change of mind is a direct result of H i e r o n i m o ’s

long and fruitless wait for justice. As John D. Ratliff argued

in 1957, Hieronimo:

...does not call into question the belief that heaven wou l d revenge H o r a t i o ’s murder in time. He merely expresses his conviction that if he waits, h e a v e n will h a v e to r e v e n g e his o w n

11 murder t o o . ...

Since Lorenzo is almost bound to kill him, Hieronimo feels the need for self-protection, and thus executes justice for

25

himself. Nonetheless, he knows that as he "...is unable to

12

o v e r c o m e his enemies in open confrontation...." he decides to w a i t for a suitable time:

Wise men will take their opportunity,

Closely and safely fitting things to time: But in extremes advantage hath no time,

And therefore all times fit not for revenge. (Ill.xi i i .25-8)

He is finally provoked into action by the loss of his son and his wife, who commits suicide:

Behoves thee then, Hieronimo, to be r e v e n g e ’d: The plot is laid of dire revenge:

On then, Hieronimo, pursue revenge.

For nothing wants but acting of revenge. ( I V . i i i .27-30)

He has to prepare a play in celebration of the wedding of B e l - i m p e r i a and Balthazar; this gives him the chance he has

been wa i t i n g for. In the play Balthazar (the Turkish emperor

Soliman) explai n s his desire for Bel-imperia (Perseda) to

H i e r o n i m o (the Pasha). This information prompts Hieronimo to

kill L o r e n z o ( P e r s e d a ’s h u s b a n d ) ; on t h e o t h e r hand, B e l - imperia revenges L o r e n z o ’s murder by murdering Balthazar and

then comm i tt i n g suicide. The only person who is left is

Hieronimo, who as a religious man, cannot carry the burden of the murder, because what he has done so far has been corrupt. In ord er not to continue with this corruption he bites his

26

tongue out. T his is a shocking moment, which emphasizes the

c o r ru p t i o n of the nation arising from the misuse of power by t h e S p a n i s h king. The s c e n e i t s e l f c o n t a i n s f i v e m u r d e r s - clearly the nation is in a state of total corruption, with each c h a ra c t e r pursu i ng his or her strategies at the expense of

others. However, A n d r e a ’s words emphasize that Hieronimo will

not be punis h ed for what he has done but will be rewarded:

" I ’ll lead H i er o ni m o where Orpheus plays, / Adding sweet

pleasure to eternal days" (IV.v.23-4). This is also confirmed

by R evenge in the epilogue: "Then haste we down to meet thy friends and foes, / To place thy friends in ease, the rest in

27

Chapter V Conclusion

T h e t h r e a t s of civil and r e l i g i o u s w a r s and f o r e i g n invasion marked the period in which The Spanish Tragedy was written. Kyd handles these in such a way as to show what may happen to a country, if neither the king nor his people act a ccording to the law.

He draws attention to the consequences of a corrupt

k i n g ’s behaviour. So long as the Spanish king acts in his own

self-interest, he creates disorder in his country. Although he tries to secure the successor of the throne by marriage, the w a y he c h o o s e s to r e a l i z e t h i s a i m a l s o c a u s e s t r o u b l e , because he attempts to impose his will upon his subjects who

wish to assert their individuality. Even Hieronimo at length

a s s e r t s his i n d i v i d u a l i t y as he c o m m i t s r e v e n g e and is ap p arently exonerated at the end of the play. However, this d o e s n ’t mean that Kyd urges his audience to rebel against the

monarch. His play appears to reinforce E l y o t ’s view concerning

a strong king and the exercise of justice:

T h e m o s t e x c e l l e n t a n d i n c o m p a r a b l e v i r t u e called j ustice is so necessary and expedient for the governor of a public weal that without it none other virtue may be commendable, nor wit or

1

any manner of doctrine profitable.

If the monarch is corrupt, however, Kyd suggests that revenge

28

end force an individual to commit suicide.

A l t h o u g h t h i s s i t u a t i o n m a y s e e m t o c o n t r a d i c t Machiavelli and E l y o t ’s pronouncements, it should be borne in m i n d t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of d i s o r d e r w a s a f u n d a m e n t a l l y

important issue during t his period. The Spanish Tragedy not

only engages with the vie w s expressed by polemicists such as Machiavelli and Elyot, but also functions as a warning as to the dangers of having an unjust monarch. To illustrate this p o i n t the p l a y m a ke s u s e of the r e v e n g e t r a d i t i o n - w h o s e importance later on mig h t have caused Sir Francis Bacon to

2

w r ite about it-and the c o n c e p t of delayed justice; but like

all good works of art these points are interpreted in terms of contem p o r a r y issues.

29

Notes Introduction

1

All references are to the following text of The

Spanish T r a g e d y : Thomas Kyd, The Spanish T r a g e d y , ed. Philip

Edwards (London: Methuen, 1969). References will be indicated paren t h e t i c all y in the text.

II. Blood Revenge Tradition

1

Fredson Bowers, Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy 1587- 1642 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1966) 3.

2 Bowers 4. 3 Bowers 4-5. 4 Bowers 5. 5 Bowers 7. 6 Bowers 7-8. 8 Bowers 31. Bowers 8,10. Bowers 33. 10 Bowers 36-9.

III. Prohibition of Revenge

1

Hamit Çalışkan, "1562-1642 Yılları Arasındaki İngiliz Trajed i l e r i nd e iktidar ve Güçlülük Kavramı,” diss., U of

Ankara, 1986, 9-11. 2

Nic c o l o Machiavelli, The P r i n c e , trans. George Bull (Middlesex: Penguin, 1979) 73-4.

3

Thomas Elyot, The Book Named The G o v e r n o r , ed. S.E. Lehmberg (London: E v e r y m a n ’s Library, 1970) 178.

4

N i cc o l o Machiavelli, The D i s c o u r s e s , trans. Leslie J.

Walker, S.J., ed. Bernard Crick (Middlesex: Penguin, 1979)

2 2 1 - 2

.

E.H. Carter and R.A.F. Mears, A History of Britain (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1960) 382.

8

Bowers 11. 9

C e rtain Sermons or Homilies Appointed to be Read in C h u r c h e s in the Time of Queen Elizabeth (London: Society for Promo t i n g C hristian Knowledge, 1864) 110.

10 30 11 12 H o mi l ie s 113-4. Homil i es 119 Homil i es 111 13 Homili e s 112.

Bowers 65. 2

Martin S. Day, Hi story of Engli sh Literature to 1660 (New York: Doubleday, 1963) 256.

3

Machiavelli, The Prinee 87-8. 4

Machiavelli, The Pri nee 124. 5

Machiavelli, The Prince 124.

6

Philip Edwards, introduction. The Spanish T r a g e d v . by Th o ma s Kyd (London: Methuen, 1969) liv.

7

31 1

8

Bowers 76-7

Machiavelli, The Prince 125.

10

11

Çalışkan 160.

Edwards, i n t r o d u c t i o n , Iv.

John D. Ratliff, "Hieronimo Explains Himself,"

St udies in Philology 54.2 (1957): 117. 12 Ratliff 117. V. C o nc l u s i o n 1 Elyot 159.

2

Francis Bacon, Essays ( London: E v e r y m a n ’s Library,

1986). In his essay "Of Revenge" Bacon shows that revenge is illegal and that,should be left to the governors to punish the wrongdoers.

32

W o r k s Cited

Bacon, Francis. E s s a y s . London: E v e r y m a n ’s Library, 1986.

Bowers, Fredson. Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy 15 87-1642.

Princeton: Princeton UP, 1966.

Carter, E.H., and R.A.F. Hears. A History of B r i t a i n .

Oxford: Oxford UP, 1960.

C e r t a i n Sermons or H o m i l i e s Appointed to be Read in Churches

in the Time of Que e n E l i z a b e t h . London: Society for

P r o m o t in g Christian Knowledge, 1864.

Çalışkan, Hamit. "1562-1642 Yılları Arasındaki İngiliz

Trajedi 1 e r i nde iktidar ve Güçlülük Kavramı." Diss.

A n k a r a U, 1986.

Day, S. Martin. History of English Literature to 1 6 6 0 . New

York: Doubleday, 1963.

Elyot, Thomas. The Book Named The G o v e r n o r . Ed. S.E.

Lehmberg. London: E v e r y m a n ’s Library, 1970.

Kyd, Thomas. The Spanish T r a g e d y . Ed. Philip Edwards.

London: Methuen, 1969.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The D i s c o u r s e s . Trans. Leslie J.

Walker, S.J. Ed. Bernard Crick. Middlesex: Penguin:

1979.

The P r i n c e . Trans. George Bull. Middlesex: Penguin,

1979.

Ratliff, John D. "Hieronimo Explains Himself." Studies in