1/ This is another revenge play, first performed in 1606, and published in 1607. The authorship is disputed: it was long attributed to Cyril Tourneur; some modern scholars believe it’s by Thomas Middleton (who collaborated with Shakespeare in a few plays); but the debate is never settled.
Whoever it was, it would have been tough for him—1606 was roughly the year of King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra—that’s Shakespeare at his peak.
2/ It’s harder to read than Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy, at first—the language is knottier.
There’s interesting imagery from the very first page though:
“VINDICE […] Oh that marrowless age
Would stuff the hollow bones with damned desires,
And ’stead of heat kindle infernal fires
Within the spendthrift veins of a dry duke,
A parched and juiceless luxur...”
(Act 1 scene 1)
Tourneur/ Middleton has some good metaphors:
“DUKE Duchess it is your youngest son, we’re sorry,
His violent act has e’er draw blood of honour
And stained our humours,
Thrown ink upon the forehead of our state
Which envious spirits will dip their pens into
Fater our death, and blot us in our tombs.
For that which would seem treason in our lives
Is laughter when we’re dead. Who dares now whisper
That dares not then speak out, and e’en proclaim
With loud words and broad pens our closest shame.”
(Act 1 scene 2)
The Duke is talking about the Duchess’s youngest son being a rapist, but the thing that interests me more is that the playwright uses extended metaphors, which Shakespeare also likes (and masters).
3/ I was surprised to come across the word “dad” in The Revenger’s Tragedy—I don’t remember ever coming across it in 19th century novels, the preferred word is “papa”—but Etymonline says “dad” is recorded from ca. 1500 and could be much older.
Learn something new every day.
4/ One of the main themes in the play is lust. The misogyny of some of the characters is revolting. For example, the Duchess’s youngest son is brought to court for raping another man’s wife. A judge asks why he did it.
“YOUNGEST SON Why flesh and blood my lord;
What should move men unto a woman else?”
(Act 1 scene 2)
Lussurioso, the Duke’s son from an earlier marriage, is not much better.
“LUSSURIOSO […] I am past my depth in lust
And I must swim or down. All my desires
Are levelled at a virgin not far from Court…”
(Act 1 scene 3)
He wants to “ravish” Castiza and doesn’t realise that the bawd to whom he thinks he’s speaking is actually her brother Vindice in disguise.
“LUSSURIOSO Push; the dowry of her blood and of her fortunes
Are both too mean – good enough to be bad withal.
I’m one of that number can defend
Marriage is good; yet rather keep a friend.
Give me my bed by stealth – there’s true delight;
What breeds a loathing in’t but night by night?”
(ibid.)
That frankly makes me puke in my mouth a little.
But it’s not just men who are full of lust. The Duchess wants to bang Spurio, the Duke’s bastard son.
5/ The scene of Vindice in disguise acting as a bawd for Lussurioso, as a way of testing his sister Castiza and his mother Gratiana, is excellent. Here’s an example:
“VINDICE […] Would I be poor, dejected, scorned of greatness,
Swept from the palace, and see other daughters
Spring with the dew o’the court, having mine own
So much desired and loved – by the Duke’s son?
No, I would raise my state upon her breast
And call her eyes my tenants; I would count
My yearly maintenance upon her cheeks,
Take coach upon her lips and all her parts
Should keep men after men and I would ride
In pleasure upon pleasure…”
(Act 2 scene 1)
Vile indeed, but Vindice is playing the role of a bawd and testing his mother. The entire scene is a fine example of rhetoric, and drama. It then ends with Vindice’s soliloquy:
“VINDICE […] Why does not heaven turn black or with a frown
Undo the world? Why does not earth start up
And strike the sins that tread upon it? Oh,
Were’t not for gold and women there would be no damnation.
Hell would look like a lord’s great kitchen without fire in’t;
But ’twas decreed before the world began
That they should be the hooks to catch at man.”
(ibid.)
Vindice is the revenger of the play, setting out to destroy the family of the Duke, who are lustful, brutal, and callous, but he too is a misogynist. We’ve seen it from the very beginning:
“VINDICE We must coin.
Women are apt you know to take false money,
But I dare stake my soul for these two creatures,
Only excuse excepted, that they’ll swallow
Because their sex is easy in belief.”
(Act 1 scene 1)
He is here speaking to his brother Hippolita, and “these two creatures” refers to their mother and sister—who talks like that about his female family members? At the end of the same scene, he says “Wives are but made to go to bed and feed.”
The play presents a rather bleak view of humanity—how many good characters are there in the play?—I can only think of two (chaste Castiza and honest Antonio). Makes me think of Webster.
6/ There is a passage in The Revenger’s Tragedy that reminds me of Hamlet’s “Now get you to my lady’s chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come.”
The revenge scene is probably crazier than anything I’ve seen in Shakespeare, even the eye-gouging scene in King Lear or the headless body in Cymbeline. And then the grand finale—the big killing scene at the end—is quite something.
As a whole, The Revenger’s Tragedy is a crazy play, a fun and exciting play. Do I think it’s a great work of art? Not really, no—like The Spanish Tragedy, there’s not much depth in it—it’s not a play that makes you think about evil, the nature of revenge, or “the human condition” as such. But it doesn’t matter. It’s a fun, enjoyable play—Tourneur/ Middleton has a good feel for pacing and tension, and his poetry is much better than Kyd’s.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be not afraid, gentle readers! Share your thoughts!
(Make sure to save your text before hitting publish, in case your comment gets buried in the attic, never to be seen again).