Revenge and Justice Theme Analysis

Many of the characters are out to right wrongs in The Revenger’s Tragedy—not least the play’s protagonist, Vindice, whose fiancée, Gloriana, was poisoned by the Duke ten years earlier. Revenge is Vindice’s obsession, just as sex is both the Duke’s and his son and heir Lussurioso’s. The play works hard to reflect the moral complexity of revenge, however, leaving it up to the audience whether the acts of revenge depicted truly represent justice—or needlessly pile violence on top of violence.

Like other avengers in the revenge tragedy genre, Vindice takes matters into his own hands following his fiancée’s poisoning. To understand why he does so, it’s vital to look at the failures of the other potential moral authorities that might otherwise have been entrusted with the task of bringing about justice for Gloriana. From the very beginning of the play, the Duke is discounted as any kind of moral arbiter—in fact, he is the cause of Vindice’s desire for revenge in the first place. The Duke, the audience quickly learns, poisoned Gloriana because she refused to have sex with him (which, it’s worth pointing out, would have been adultery). For him, Gloriana’s death itself represents a skewed form of revenge—but not moral justice.

Though there are also numerous judges and legal professionals in the play—both on stage and off—there isn’t a single instance in which these men impose justice in accordance with a reliable moral framework. Instead, they prove to be as ethically corrupted by money (in the form of bribes) as characters like the Duke are by lust. Early in the play, Spurio, the Duke’s bastard son, outlines the corruptibility of the judges: “if judgments have cold blood, flattery and bribes will kill it.” Even if the judges did have a more virtuous moral worldview, they would be rendered useless by their deference to the Duke—who clearly has the ultimate power and final say in any given dispute. Given his brazen immorality, this completely undermines any pretensions of a fair legal system.

Whereas other plays lend more plausibility to the idea of divine providence—interventions by God or gods in the name of justice—The Revenger’s Tragedy represents a world in which religion is ineffectual, unable to address any of the fiendish acts committed throughout the play. Characters often talk about religion—Christianity specifically—but, aside from Vindice’s virginal sister, Castiza, they show no genuine allegiance to Christian morals. In fact, “sin” is present throughout, in the form of dishonesty, rape, incest, and murder. Characters often create their own justification for their actions, absolving themselves from any sense of religious or moral obligation. The idea of divine providence is even gently mocked. For instance, Vindice’s call for thunder and lightning—which is promptly and impossibly answered, “on cue”—makes the possible intervention of a deity seem nothing more than a clichéd theatre trick.

There is a moral vacuum, then, which Vindice decides it is his duty to fill. Perhaps with more reliable moral authorities elsewhere, a different, less violent form of justice could have been served. Yet even as Vindice has no choice but to avenge the murder of Gloriana himself, the play makes it far from clear whether his revenge actually equates to justice.

Though he seems to have a simple aim, Vindice gets embroiled in all sorts of moral tangles throughout the play, suggesting violent revenge is not a clear-cut guarantee of justice. For example, while in disguise as the pimp Piato, Vindice agrees to do a favor for Lussurioso (something Vindice thinks will improve his chances of taking revenge): Vindice manages to convince his mother, Gratiana, that she should prostitute his virginal sister, Castiza, to Lussurioso. Though Vindice does this as part of his wider quest for vengeance, this has little to do with Gloriana. Later in the play, Vindice almost decides to kill his mother for her being willing to prostitute Castiza. But it was Vindice himself—albeit in disguise—who used his powers of persuasion to make Gratiana think that way. This is a moral paradox, then, because he wants to punish his mother for a “crime” in which he is arguably complicit. This quandary seems far removed from his simple desire to kill the Duke.

When Vindice’s plan for revenge does eventually come to fruition, many people die in the closing scene’s bloodbath, including some who have not displayed any immoral behavior at all. This suggests that personal vengeance can have unintended and deadly repercussions. And with his revenge complete, Vindice can’t help but brag about his achievements to Antonio, the new ruler. Vindice is then instantly sentenced to death, a kind of cosmic joke on the part of the playwright. This both implies that Vindice’s view of the revenge as personal achievement is fundamentally flawed (and perhaps even a sin itself deserving of instant “justice”) and undermines any sense of fairly applied justice present in the play. Revenge, then, is not a simple case of dishing out like for like. The avenger is naïve to think that vengeance will be simple or clear-cut, and through his quest for supposed justice only becomes further entangled in the complicated moral world of humanity.