The Prototypical Avengers in The

Spanish Tragedy and Hamlet

Paul Nielsen Isho

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

During the height of the English Renaissance, the revenge tragedies The Spanish Tragedy and
Hamlet were introduced to the English literary canon. In this essay, I will focus on the
similarities that the protagonists, Hamlet and Hieronimo, share as prototypical avengers.
Although Hamlet’s contribution to the genre should not be discredited, I will argue that the
similar characterisation of Hieronimo in The Spanish Tragedy, portrays the same depth and
entitlement to the acclaim as a prototypical avenger as Hamlet. Even though their portrayal
may differ in tone, their shared commonality attributes equal complexity to both characters. I
will compare and analyse the two plays in order to demonstrate that both characters should be
considered prototypical avengers. The essay concludes that a reluctance to revenge and a
tendency to contemplate the morality of the action is prominently shared by both prototypical
avengers. Although critics generally infer Hieronimo is a less complex character in comparison
with Hamlet, this essay will show how both avengers deserve equal credit. This essay illustrates
this statement by juxtaposing their equal need to find justification before taking revenge, use
of suicide to emphasise their moral dilemma, and comment on the tragic consequences of
revenge.
Since the early years of storytelling to its use in our day, revenge has persistently remained an
enthralling theme in fiction. During the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, the genre of the
revenge tragedy introduced a significant rendering of its use. Helen Hackett explains that the
genre proliferated in Elizabethan England with a new take on revenge that distinguished itself
from the classic depiction of the Greco-Roman tragedies of Seneca (79). In addition, the
characteristic features that led to the distinction were, for instance, the graphic depiction of
mutilation and death, Machiavellian villains, supernatural elements, mad characters, and
plays-within-plays (79). However, the central influence of the revenge tragedy genre was the
complex characterisation of its avenger character. Naturally, when discussing complex
avengers, William Shakespeare’s monumental characterisation of his troubled protagonist in
the play Hamlet (c. 1599-1601) is central. Frank Kermode praises the play as the first truly
complex revenge play: “Certainly no play before Hamlet could have accommodated so much
and so diverse metaphysical and psychological speculation … Hamlet clearly works on a
different level from any other play of its kind” (1135). Like Kermode, most critics regard
Hamlet’s iconic characterisation as a prototype to the later avengers of the revenge genre, and
as the first truly developed revenge character. Similarly, Anna Blackwell defines Hamlet as “the
archetypal period revenge text”, where Hamlet’s characterisation influences “the most iconic
modern-day avatar of revenge” (6). As a result, however, critics fail to acknowledge another
significant avenger who deserves equal recognition.
Another influential play of Renaissance England was the founding work of the revenge
tragedy genre, The Spanish Tragedy (c. 1587), written by Thomas Kyd. Fredson Bowers defines
the influence of The Spanish Tragedy in the terms of the Kydian formula, i.e., a precedent-
setting model to the later works of the genre. Following Kyd’s formula, the later tragedies either
imitated or parodied the same plot elements and stock characters, in addition to conveying
that the “fundamental motive for tragic action is revenge” (qtd. in Wetmore 5). However, the
critics generally recognise the impact and popularity of the play rather than appreciating the
significance of its main protagonist Hieronimo in the same way that they value Hamlet.

2
William L. Stull, for instance, typically argues that Shakespeare “returned to and perfected the
Kydian formula” and although Kyd’s play “set a pattern for playwrights, The Spanish Tragedy
contained a fatal antinomy that was to become increasingly troublesome” (39). Arguably,
critics tend to interpret Hieronimo as a less developed, and less complex character whom
Shakespeare later enriched in Hamlet. However, I find that these arguments fail to take into
account the multifaceted nature of Hieronimo’s characterisation. Thus, I am more inclined
towards T.S. Eliot’s beliefs that Hamlet includes “verbal parallels so close to The Spanish
Tragedy as to leave no doubt that in places Shakespeare was merely revising the text of Kyd”
(89). Although Hamlet’s contribution to the genre should not be discredited, this essay argues
that the similar characterisation of Hieronimo in The Spanish Tragedy, portrays the same
depth and entitlement to the acclaim as a prototypical avenger as Hamlet, i.e., that there are
more similarities than differences between the two characters. Even though their portrayal
may differ in tone, their shared commonality attributes equal complexity to both characters.
Arguing for the similarities rather than the differences between Hieronimo and Hamlet, I will
compare and analyse the two plays in order to demonstrate that both characters should be
considered prototypical avengers. I will begin by examining their shared need to seek
justification before taking revenge. Secondly, I will show that both characters use the act of
suicide to emphasise their battle with the morality of revenge. I will finally demonstrate how
both characters inevitably reveal the tragic consequences of revenge for those who pursue it,
and not just for the pursued.
Before examining Hamlet and Hieronimo, however, it is useful to provide an example of
a less complex kind of avenger: the character of Laertes from Hamlet. According to Susanne
Wofford, Shakespeare comments on the “revenger of the old-school” in Laertes’s
characterisation (20). The old-school avenger originates from the Senecan tragedies, a classical
model for the revenge tragedy genre. Henry W. Wells points out that Seneca’s “untheatrical
heroes and heroines are commonly engaged either in dialogue with the most colorless of
confidants or in the delivery of the longest of soliloquies” (80). Moreover, the Senecan take on

3
revenge centres on how predisposed anger “overthrows reason” and results in the desire to
take revenge (Kaster 6). Robert E. Kaster, for instance, summarises Seneca’s view on revenge
with the phrase “I should be revenged, since I’ve been wronged” (8). Thus, in contrast to the
more complex avenger, the old-school avenger is overtaken by rage and pursues a linear path
to a simple revenge.
Wofford points out that Laertes, as a simple revenger, “is manipulated into becoming the
agent of the king’s corrupt schemes” (20), and fulfils Claudius’s plans instead of his own. Not
restrained by the Christian doctrine that prohibits personal revenge, Laertes shows no mercy
during the climax of the play:
To my revenge, but in terms of honor
I stand aloof, and will no reconcilement
Till by some elder masters of known honor …
To keep my name ungor’d. (Shakespeare 5.2.228-32).
In its place, Laertes embraces the pagan take on revenge by showing the need to abide to
ancient honour codes and salvage his tarnished name, which is a defining aspect of the old-
school avenger (Hackett 81). Laertes demonstrates his uninhibited devotion to revenge when
he storms into Elsinore and accuses Claudius as being involved in his father’s death
(Shakespeare 4.5.115-16). Later, Laertes displays the same kind of brute rage when he
encounters Hamlet at Ophelia’s burial. As their dispute intensifies, he attempts to strangle
Hamlet: “The devil take thy soul! [Grappling with him] / […] I prithee, take thy fingers from
my throat” (Shakespeare 5.1.244-46). The effect of Laertes’s desire corrupts his nature as he
submits to his brutish urge to revenge. Thus based on these examples we can conclude that
Laertes is lacking the aforementioned key features of the more progressive avenger character.
Among the old-school avenger-characters which critics believe Shakespeare is
paralleling in Laertes, Hieronimo is mistakenly included. Critics believe Hieronimo abandons
his reluctance and morality like Laertes and lowers himself to his villains’ level by seeking
personal revenge (Ratliff 112). The remainder of the essay will illustrate how Hieronimo

4
diverges from that old-school portrayal in his path to revenge. The first aspect that separates
both Hamlet and Hieronimo from the old-school avenger is their need to find justification
before taking revenge. The first problem both protagonists of The Spanish Tragedy and Hamlet
face is a crime that has been committed, and they share a continuing pursuit of finding
evidence. Neither Hamlet nor Hieronimo directly attempts to kill the people who stand in the
way of their revenge. On the contrary, in order to commit the heinous act of revenge, they
emulate a private judicial proceeding. In a composed manner, they strive to justify their
revenge by acquiring valid evidence. Thus, the importance of this need enhances their
characterisations as complex avengers as both characters establish their sense of morality by
abiding to justice.
Furthermore, this need for justification is also a valuable feature in terms of their
influence as prototypical avengers. Richard Madeleine, for instance, recognises that “in a
manner that foreshadows the genre of crime fiction in general, revenge tragedy is popular
sensational fiction, to which crime and justice are central” and that the avengers of this era
acted as proto-detectives, in their search for evidence (9). However, Madeleine mainly
attributes this feature to Hamlet alone:
Hamlet’s emphasis on the intrinsic difficulties of detection … and the
consequent imperatives of scepticism and a developed mechanism for testing
evidence … interrogates the Senecan conventions of the revenge genre that raises
so centrally the issues of detection and social justice. (1)
However, after discussing Hamlet, this part of the essay will also show how Hieronimo equally
exemplifies this prominent feature in the prototypical avenger. The measures Hamlet uses in
order to justify his revenge, demonstrate this similarity in The Spanish Tragedy. Thus, In order
to illustrate this, I will firstly define Hamlet’s course of action and then juxtapose his with
Hieronimo’s equal need to achieve justification before taking revenge.
Hamlet’s proto-detective “investigation” concerns the scepticism he feels when the
ghost of his dead father implicates Claudius as his murderer. Early in the play, Shakespeare

5
establishes Hamlet’s intellectual standard through his academic career at the University of
Wittenberg (Hanson 222). In terms of his need to find justification before taking revenge, the
importance of Hamlet’s intellectual characterisation plays a vital part as he directs scepticism
against his father’s appearance. Instead of confronting Claudius, Hamlet needs confirmation,
as he remains composed enough to realise the hazards of following a spirit,
The spirit that I have seen
May be the [dev’l], and the [dev’l] hath power
T’ assume a pleasing shape, yea, and perhaps,
Out of my weakness and my melancholy,
As he is very potent with such spirits,
Abuses me to damn me. (Shakespeare 3.1.578-83)
With this passage, Hamlet shows that he has come to his senses after previously having pledged
his revenge to the Ghost: “Haste me to know ’t, that I, with wings as swift / As meditation or
the thoughts of love, / May sweep to my revenge” (Shakespeare 1.5.29-31). Thus, the restraint
Hamlet shows in his scepticism against the Ghost confirms his need for justification before
taking action. In the same soliloquy, Hamlet reveals the method that he will use to refute his
scepticism. By defining the reason for his ingenious Mousetrap play, “I have heard / That guilty
creatures sitting at a play … / have proclaimed their malefactions” (Shakespeare 3.1.568-72),
Hamlet reveals how his need is to be fulfilled. Finally, with his remark regarding how
Claudius’s reaction will provide more relevant grounds for his revenge, “If’a do blench, / I
know my course” (Shakespeare 3.1.577-78), Hamlet demonstrates how his need for revenge
must be validated by empirical evidence rather than the controversial testimony of devilish
spirits.
Similar to Hamlet, Hieronimo also undertakes an investigation in his identical need for
justification. Hieronimo similarly receives judiciary evidence that implicates the main
offenders in his revenge, Lorenzo and Balthazar. The letter written by Bel-Imperia retells the
story of Horatio’s murder. However, due to the mystical circumstance of the allegation,

6
Hieronimo demonstrates a parallel restraint and scepticism against the validity of its content:
“What means this unexpected miracle / … what cause had they Horatio to malign?” (Kyd
3.2.33). Thus, even though his grief is immeasurable, Hieronimo portrays a great sense of
restraint: “Hieronimo, beware, thou art betrayed” (Kyd 3.2.38). In addition, instead of
throwing himself at Lorenzo and Balthazar’s throats, he encourages himself to remain logical:
“And to entrap they life this train [trap] is laid. / Advise thee therefore, be not credulous: / This
is devised to endanger thee” (Kyd 3.2.39-41). Similar to Hamlet, Hieronimo adds “And of his
death behoves me be revenged: / Then hazard not thy own, Hieronimo” (Kyd 3.2.46-47), which
shows that he also realises the hazards of following evidence that might be used to harm him.
Hieronimo’s scepticism thereby indicates his need for more relative grounds and restraint
before taking his revenge, instead of mindlessly taking violent action. The measure of restraint
and scepticism that Kyd places in Hieronimo, despite his urge to revenge, convey his need for
justification before taking revenge. The same aspect also adds to Hieronimo’s claim as a proto-
detective, attributed to the prototypical avenger. In his subsequent investigation of the crime,
Hieronimo systematically examines the evidence that has come to his attention: “I therefore
will by circumstances try, / What I can gather to confirm this writ” (Kyd 3.2.49-50). Moreover,
as he carries an esteemed title within the law as Knight Marshal, the effect of his
characterisation further credits him as a proto-detective character.
Subsequently, Hieronimo fulfils his need for justification by confirming his first piece
of evidence in the same way as Hamlet does. Following his investigation, he comes across
conclusive evidence in the discovery of Pedringano’s letter to Lorenzo. The result of the second
letter provides him with an additional source to the controversial letter from Bel-imperia.
With new evidence from yet another source, Hieronimo can no longer disregard the
implications against Lorenzo and Balthazar: “Now see I, what I durst not then suspect, / That
Bel-imperia’s letter was not feigned” (Kyd 3.7.49-50). Thus, Hieronimo has fulfilled his need
to justify his revenge. However, an aspect of great significance after this insight is Hieronimo’s
ensuing reaction. Despite all of Hieronimo’s previous outcries for a gory revenge—for

7
instance, “But wherefore waste I mine unfruitful words / When naught but blood will satisfy
my woes?” (Kyd 3.7.67-68)—Hieronimo does not originally attempt to achieve it through
personal revenge. Instead, he shows reluctance as he prioritizes legal justice above personal
revenge:
I will go plain me to my lord the king,
And cry aloud for justice through the court. […]
And either purchase justice by entreats,
Or tire them all with my revenging threats. (Kyd 3.7.69-73)
This passage shows that even though he acquires evidence to justify his revenge, his primary
instinct is the ethical form of revenge. We thus see how Hieronimo’s characterisation conveys
an adherence to justice since he does not see personal revenge as his only option. Accordingly,
before finding the second letter, Hieronimo again hints that he prioritises legal justice above
personal revenge, as he comments on Pedringano’s sentence:
For blood with blood shall, while I sit as judge,
Be satisfied, and the law discharged.
And though myself cannot receive the like,
Yet will I see that others have their right.
Dispatch, the fault approved and confessed,
And by our law he is condemned to die. (Kyd 3.5.35-41)
The effect of this comment is to show how Hieronimo believes that “the law discharged” has
the ability to take a righteous revenge through justice. In addition, the passage carries another
significant function, by reducing his rather malicious desire for blood. By explaining that the
established laws have power to fulfil his desire for blood, Hieronimo places value in revenge
achieved through legal means to satisfy his woes rather than by his own doing.
However, although Hamlet and Hieronimo in the end feel that revenge must follow,
both characters show reluctance prior to their revenge. As both characters show signs of
understanding the irony in punishing evil with evil, they begin to debate the morality of

8
revenge. Aware of the Christian attitude towards revenge, they yearn for righteous vengeance.
However, by not punishing the ones who murdered their loved ones, their guilt intensifies. As
a result, both characters exhibit their second shared quality as prototypical avengers: their
moral dilemma. Helen Hackett acknowledges that the inclusion of an avenger character
pressured by a moral dilemma became “central to [the] continuing appeal” of the revenge
genre since it introduced a more conscientious avenger (81). For that reason, the upcoming
part of this essay will illustrate that Hieronimo as well as Hamlet share this trait. The similarity
centres on how both Kyd and Shakespeare use the drastic act of suicide to emphasise the
despair that their avengers experience while combating the dilemma.
Before examining their contemplation of suicide, however, it is important to discuss the
exact nature of their dilemma. In this dilemma, personal revenge battles against the natural
and ethical form of revenge. By committing an eye-for-an-eye personal revenge, the avenger
would attest to pagan honour codes of humanity’s more bestial and instinctive urges (Hackett
81). The other side of the dilemma, however, defines the revenge ratified by justices of human
law or, more importantly, divine justice. According to Robert E. Watson, the Christian notion
of revenge implies that only God should act as the ultimate avenger (308). As Paul instructs in
Romans 12:19, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it
is written, ‘vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible).
However, this path to revenge requires the necessary strength and restraint to fight against
one’s innate bestial urges, which for both Hamlet and Hieronimo proves to be difficult. For
this purpose, the effects of envisioning the drastic act of suicide as a remedy to their tormented
souls accurately portray and emphasise the suffering that they experience because of their
dilemmas with revenge.
Hamlet expresses his contemplation and torn mind in his famous “To be or not to be”
soliloquy. The foundation to this soliloquy, however, is to first identify Hamlet’s reluctance to
commit evil. Charles Boyce identifies that an important feature in Hamlet’s characterisation is
that “as [an] avenger, Hamlet is both opposed to and involved in evil” (137). Thus, the first

9
instance to establish Hamlet’s opposition to the bestial side of the dilemma is evident just after
the Ghost implies Claudius as his murderer. Even though he swears to revenge: “Now to my
word: / […] I have sworn’t” (Shakespeare 1.5.110-12), Hamlet later condemns his role as an
avenger, “O cursed spite, / that ever I was born to set it right” (Shakespeare 1.5.188-89), which
reflects his reluctance to punish murder with murder. Even though Hamlet, struck by the
passion of the moment accepts his task to revenge, he later exhibits indecision as he realises
that revenge is an equally foul deed:
[O vengeance!]
Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave,
That I, the son of a dear [father] murdered,
Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,
Must like a whore unpack my heart with words …
A stallion. Fie upon’t, foh! (Shakespeare 3.1.560-66)
This passage explicitly acknowledges the resentment Hamlet has against revenge, in that he
has to abandon his opposition to evil in order to fulfil his pledge. Later, Shakespeare again uses
the simile where Hamlet compares himself with a male prostitute in order to emphasise further
that Hamlet undertakes his revenge unwillingly: “A stallion. Fie upon’t, foh!” (Shakespeare
3.1.567).
As Hamlet enters the scene to deliver his “To be or not to be” soliloquy, however, his
unwillingness to avenge his father is increasingly weakened by the bestial side of his character.
The growing guilt that Hamlet experiences by not honouring his murdered father contradicts
his own principles of evil. In this soliloquy, to mirror his now tormented mind, Hamlet
exclaims how easy it would be to simply end “The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks”
(Shakespeare 3.1.61) that his revenge causes him. Furthermore, he then signifies that to
embrace death would be a sweet release from his burdens: “To die, to sleep. / To sleep,
perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub” (Shakespeare 3.1.63-64). Hamlet then further
emphasises his torn mind and contemplation by saying “For who would bear the whips and

10
scorns of time, / Th' oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, / The pangs of despis’d
love, the law’s delay” (Shakespeare 3.1.69–71). As Hamlet lists these injustices, he not only
stresses the pointlessness of life but also criticises the inefficiency of human justice. In addition,
by commenting on the inefficiency of justice, he further stresses why he must take revenge into
his own hands, as the difficulty of implicating Claudius, being the head of the nation, renders
his justice unobtainable.
Subsequently, Hamlet returns to the same kind of despair that he portrayed in the first
act when he states that life is lacking purpose: “How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable / Seem
to me all the uses of this world!” (Shakespeare 1.2.133-34). Furthermore, Shakespeare uses the
simile where life is an “unweeded garden that grows to seed” (Shakespeare 1.2.135) to
emphasise Hamlet’s grim perspective on life. The reason for comparing the two instances is to
show that Hamlet shows another inhibition to revenge. Even though his purpose should be
devoted to revenge, he still finds life as pointless as it was before. By asking why we continue
to “grunt and sweat under a weary life” (3.1.76), Hamlet adds to the same feeling of a pointless
life as he reaches the peak of his contemplation to commit suicide: “When he himself might
his quietus make / With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear” (Shakespeare 3.1.74-75).
Hamlet wonders why anyone would want to face the burdens of life when the ease of death
would remove us from our responsibilities. As a result, by celebrating the relieving sensation
that suicide would bring, Hamlet emphasises his torn mind, caused by his moral indecision
towards revenge.
Hieronimo, although not as vividly as Hamlet, still portrays the same kind of depth
when revealing his torn mind. When he finds his murdered son, Horatio hanging from the
arbour, he cries out:
See’st thou this handkercher besmeared with blood?
It shall not from me till I take revenge
Seest thou those wounds that yet are bleeding fresh?
I’ll entomb them till I have revenged. (Kyd 2.5.51-54)

11
Thus, similar to Hamlet, Hieronimo pledges himself to revenge. However, whereas Hamlet
expresses his opposition to the evil nature of revenge after his pledge, Hieronimo cannot. Kyd
uses Hieronimo’s trauma as a tool to make us sympathise with his character. Although Hamlet
experiences similar grief, he does not originally know that his father was murdered. Thus, the
brutality and gore in the murder of Horatio renders Hieronimo’s grief understandable in
comparison with Hamlet’s restraint. Although Hieronimo, for that very reason, does not
explicitly condemn his role as avenger, he presents his opposition to the evil side of the
dilemma elsewhere. The most apparent characteristic, which Kyd uses to establish
Hieronimo’s opposition, is seen in his characterisation as Knight Marshal to the Spanish court,
an esteemed title that conveys a character adhering to justice. Accordingly, I would argue that
his characterisation aligns him with Watson’s view that Hieronimo “wanders into a play-world
thematically charged with a paradox” (314). Thus, Hieronimo’s unwillingness resides in his
paradoxical characterisation, and his dilemma with revenge centres on the contradicting
morality of revenge set against justice. Despite his esteemed title within the law he cannot
obtain the justice he pursues. Consequently, Hieronimo’s inaction results in an increasing
amount of guilt. Similar to Hamlet, the ensuing guilt increases his urges to honour his
murdered son through personal revenge, which thus contradicts his characteristic adherence
to justice.
The first indication of Hieronimo’s suicidal contemplation and his battle with issues of
justice presents itself when he, similar to Hamlet, expresses the pointlessness of life: “Oh life,
no life, but lively form of death” (Kyd 3.2.2). In addition, he explicitly emphasises his
tormented soul as he further questions where he is to find solace to the injustices that he has
been subjected to: “Where shall I run to breathe abroad my woes / … Yet still tormented is my
tortured soul / With broken sighs and restless passions” (Kyd 3.7.1.10-11). Subsequently, in a
metaphor where Hieronimo’s tormented soul is described as a winged mount “Soliciting for
justice and revenge” (Kyd 3.7.13), he expresses his inability to reach the impregnable heavenly
justices as they are “placed in those empyreal heights”, and fortified by “countermured […]

12
walls of diamond” (Kyd 3.7.15). As a result, the metaphor explains how his tormented soul
cannot reach its remedy of justice by neither human nor divine forces. This is an apt metaphor
as it further conveys how Hieronimo’s torn mind is the result of his moral dilemma between
justice and revenge.
Hieronimo’s contemplation reaches its climax in the thirteenth scene of the same act.
Although many consider Hamlet more vibrant when speculating about his act of suicide,
Hieronimo is also eloquent in his use of symbols. His torn mind, while battling his dilemma,
has led him to this point and he enters the scene with a poniard in one hand and a rope in the
other. These symbols represent his dilemma explicitly. The poniard represents taking revenge
according to the bestial side of his character. The second symbol, the rope, however, carries a
significant ultimatum in relation to the moral and legal side of his character. Although he
would be choosing the more ethical form of revenge by not using the poniard to kill, it would
create a scenario in which he would hang himself to escape it. Hieronimo’s ultimatum hints at
his attitude towards a society lacking justice, as he would not want to partake in such a world.
Subsequently, similar to Hamlet, Hieronimo chooses not to commit suicide:
Turn down this path, thou shalt be with him straight,
Or this, and then thou need’st not take thy breath.
This way or that way? soft and faire, not so:
For, if I hang or kill myself, lets know
Who will revenge Horatio’s murder then?
No, no, fie, no! Pardon me: I’ll none of that: (Kyd 3.12.14-19)
The indecisiveness of this monologue ends with him opting for action. By expressing his final
decision to pursue his revenge, he portrays the inescapabilty of his unjust situation. In
addition, his indecisiveness also presents the very centre of a tragedy, by displaying the futility
in any action, i.e., that no act of human justice, suicide, or revenge, has the ability to affect the
permanent fact of death (Watson 315).

13
 Later in the scene, the King of Spain, accompanied by the antagonist, Lorenzo, joins
Hieronimo. Hieronimo attempts to plea for justice to the King but Lorenzo brushes his
attempts aside. Significantly, at this point, Hieronimo further exemplifies how his sense of
justice as Knight Marshal is a vital part in his reluctance to 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”
(Kyd 3.12.76-77). In effect, by renouncing his honours as Knight Marshal, Hieronimo conveys
that in order to take revenge he would have to renounce his adherence to justice first.
Now that we have assessed the two avengers’ moral dilemma, the remainder of the essay
will focus on how they achieve their sought after revenge. It is at this point, however, critics
believe Hieronimo diverges from Hamlet, by turning into a villain in his quest for revenge. For
that reason, this part of the essay will mainly focus on Hieronimo. Nevertheless, by comparing
Hieronimo’s act of revenge with Hamlet’s, the following analysis will show that both characters
make an equivalent comment on the tragic consequences of revenge.
The alleged division between the two occurs as Hieronimo delivers his Vindicta Mihi
soliloquy. After finding the antagonists unattainable by legal amendment (firstly, by his own
jurisdiction as Knight Marshal and then by attempting to address the King), Hieronimo
realises that action is inescapable. Critics interpret the effect of this soliloquy as the point where
he embraces the pagan act of personal revenge above the Christian induction (Ratliff 113).
Furthermore, this view of The Spanish Tragedy is aptly summarised by Paul Gottschalk when
he criticises the ambiguity of Hieronimo’s moral character: “Kyd leaves it unclear whether his
protagonist is hero or villain. At one point Hieronimo renounces the biblical injunction that
vengeance is the Lord’s and embarks on a mission of Italianate revenge” (170). Granted, as
Hieronimo introduces the quote from Romans, “’Vengeance is mine’” (Kyd 3.13.1) before
seemingly favouring a quotation from Seneca, “‘The safe way for crime is always through
crime’” (Kyd 3.13.6), such an interpretation might be made. However, even though Hieronimo
subsequently undertakes an unprompted act of vengeance upon his villains, Gottschalk and
other critics alike fail to see how Hieronimo’s action is not bound by bloodlust but by the

14
surrounding injustices, forcing his hand, making him in effect the instrument of God’s
vengeance.
In order to illustrate this feature, a more comprehensive interpretation of Hieronimo’s
soliloquy is required. John D. Ratliff, for instance, makes a significant analysis of the soliloquy,
which actively shows that Kyd did not intend to vilify Hieronimo nor serve the Senecan
tradition of revenge, but instead intended “to allay [the audience’s] qualms and to state clearly
the view of the play that the revenge upon which Hieronimo was embarking was just and
necessary” (115). According to Ratliff, Kyd’s purpose with Hieronimo’s soliloquy is to present
his need for self-defence (117), a need caused by Hieronimo’s realisation of Lorenzo’s
villainous methods. As Hieronimo witnesses how Lorenzo arranged the deaths of his
accomplices to Horatio’s murder, by reading Pedringano’s letter he realises that Lorenzo
would surely take the same precautions against him in order to remove liability for his actions.
Hieronimo’s fears increase as he sees Lorenzo and his father, Castile, closely intertwined with
the King. After his attempt to plea “Justice, O justice, justice, gentle King”, the King answers
Hieronimo with scepticism: “What means this outrage? will none of you restrain his fury?”
(Kyd 3.12.62-88). Additionally, as Lorenzo stands in his way, Hieronimo may fear that the
nobility that he faces will prevent him righteous justice for the death of Horatio. Presumably,
Hieronimo believes that the King, related by blood, would undeniably take Lorenzo’s side
above his regardless of his efforts. Therefore, evidence as to why Hieronimo no longer can wait
for “heaven to revenge every ill” presents itself (Kyd 3.13.2).
Taking his need for self-defence into consideration, the actual context of the Senecan
quotes becomes important. Ratliff argues that if we credit Kyd’s citation to be appropriate, an
explanation of the usage of Senecan quotes is obvious (117). The provocative quote “The safe
way for crime is always through crime” (Kyd 3.13.6) is originally uttered by the character
Clytemnestra, in the Senecan tragedy, Agamemnon. Clytemnestra utters the line as she realises
that she has to take revenge on Agamemnon before he kills her (Ratliff 116). The context of
the quote therefore clarifies that the purpose of its use is to outline the need for self-

15
preservation. Instead of finding Senecan inspiration, Hieronimo uses the quote as he associates
himself with Clytemnestra’s situation. Similar to Agamemnon’s desire to kill Clytemnestra,
the men who murdered Horatio will strive to remove him as well. Thus “crime for crime” does
not represent how Hieronimo grants himself permission to use the same evil that he has
experienced, but instead as a revelation that he has to commit crime to protect himself.
Hieronimo further conveys his need for self-defence in a later scene, as he quotes the Italian
phrase “’He who shows unusual fondness to me has or wishes to betray me’” (Kyd 3.14.174-
75) in response to Lorenzo and Castile’s acts of kinship towards him. Accordingly, the lines
“For he that thinks with patience to contend / To quiet life, his life shall easily end” (Kyd
3.13.10-11) explain why he needs to act hastily in doing so, i.e., that the man living the quiet
life of inaction is an easy target to eliminate (Ratliff 117).
In addition, Hieronimo’s need for self-defence also sheds light on why he befriends
Lorenzo and Balthazar as he arranges his dumb-play. Hieronimo realises that he will gain
nothing by menacing them openly as the effects of their nobility will brush him aside. He
parallels this unequal encounter in the simile of a “wintery storm upon a plain” (Kyd 3.13.37).
In the simile, the plain represents the common man, who cannot take up resistance against the
harsh, winter storm, which symbolises the power of the nobility. Furthermore, instead of
simple perversity, Hieronimo explicitly states that he will not inspire his revenge by the “vulgar
wits of men” (Kyd 3.13.21) but with the necessity of his task. Michael Henry Levin makes a
similar argument in relation to this interpretation (312), arguing that Hieronimo’s intentions,
unlike Hamlet who was inspired by the accidental arrival of strolling actors, are “the result of
a magistrate’s mind bent on doing justice” and “planned to prevent external interference”
(311). In addition, Hieronimo aims to gain time to determine his best course of action, “Till to
revenge thou know when, where, and how” (Kyd 3.13.44). Hieronimo thereby designs a plan
that will expose his enemies, as he defines it: “With open but inevitable ills” (Kyd 3.13.22).
Finally, the effect of his planning also demonstrates that Hieronimo still remains composed
and calculating and disproves that he has embarked on an infuriated quest for carnage.

16
 In the context of Hieronimo’s revenge, I find that his principle that “heaven will be
revenged of every ill, / Nor will they suffer murder unrepaid” (Kyd 3.13.2-3) is intended for
himself, as well as for his enemies. Hieronimo has previously shown similar awareness
regarding the morality of following the path to revenge. Kyd aptly portrays Hieronimo’s
awareness in the metaphor of the directions to Lorenzo,
The way to him, and where to find him out, …
There is a path upon your left hand side,
That leadeth from a guilty conscience,
Unto a forest of distrust and fear.
A darksome place and dangerous to pass,
There shall you meet with melancholy thoughts
Whose baleful humours if you but uphold,
It will conduct you to despair and death: (Kyd 3.11.13-21)
This passage explains that, although he will experience relief from his guilty conscience, the
path to revenge will inevitably lead him to a darkness that causes death and misery. Again, in
his Vindicta mihi soliloquy, Hieronimo explains his principles on evil. The injustice that has
spawned his revenge has resulted in evil in him, which now forces him to follow this path.
However, although the supernatural revenge endorses him, Hieronimo still finds revenge an
inexcusable action. Thus, despite his dire need of self-defence, in addition to all of Lorenzo’s
sinful deeds, he still conveys a reluctance to revenge. More importantly, Hieronimo thereby
shows insight. Instead of embracing a pagan, personal revenge, he embraces his inescapable
tragic punishment: “If destiny deny thee life Hieronimo / Yet shalt thou be assured of a tomb”
(Kyd 3.13.16-17). Instead of seeking a scenario where he is living with the satisfaction of
revenge, these lines hint that he recognises his upcoming fate for committing his unsanctioned
actions. Hieronimo foreseeing the effects of his revenge, however, hints that he will not go
unpunished after he has fulfilled his task. I believe Hieronimo adheres to this principle until
the end. In his final words, although “Pleased with their death, and eased with their revenges”

17
he surrenders his claim to life: “First take my tongue, and afterwards my heart.” (Kyd 4.4.189-
90).
In a sense, by being pushed into taking revenge, Hieronimo is no more. The former
man adhering to justice as Knight Marshal is gone and the revenger remains. He reveals this
aspect and the reason for it, as he displays the murdered Horatio to the audience of his play:
Behold the reason urging me to this. …
Here lay my hope and here my hope hath end;
Here lay my heart, and here my heart was slain; …
All fled, failed, died, yea, all decayed with this. …
They murdered me that made these fatal marks. (Kyd 4.4.88-97)
The effect of this passage further distances him from exemplifying an original willingness to
seek revenge. In relation to this argument, Levin argues that Kyd depicts an examination of
the morality of revenge in Hieronimo. In order to enable the higher powers to establish justice
in a pitched battle where evil has the advantage, good cannot triumph if it is playing by the
rules of goodness (322). Thus, in Hieronimo, Kyd, in a “dramatic exposition of vengeance,
not an explanation” comments on the duality when good is suppressed by evil (Levin 323).
The unpunished crimes against him, was the reason for his descent into revenge and
subsequent death. Thus, a significant meaning in Hieronimo, which he illustrates in saying
“Though on this earth justice will not be found, / I’ll down to hell … in this passion” (Kyd
3.13.113-14) and “For here’s no justice … / For justice is exiled from the earth” (Kyd 3.13.144-
45), depicts how the lack of justice in a distorted society spawns evil in him and righteous men
alike.
Although not as resolute as Hieronimo, Hamlet shares a similar forced transformation.
Hamlet’s equivalent of Hieronimo’s Vindicta mihi is the soliloquy he delivers before travelling
to England. Similar to Hieronimo’s self-defence, the accidental death of Polonius forces
Hamlet into taking action and this passage reveals his newfound take on revenge in particular.
His reluctance to avenge made him gain nothing in return, as everything spurred him toward

18
sin, resulting in the death of Polonius: “How all occasions do inform against me, / And spur
my dull revenge!” (Shakespeare 4.4.32-33). Hamlet then questions humanity’s beastlike
nature: “What is a man / If his chief good and market of his time / Be but to sleep and feed? a
beast, no more” (Shakespeare 4.4.33-35). Subsequently, Hamlet again questions humanity’s
greater cause in life if we are unable to use our given ability for reason:
Sure He that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and godlike reason
To fust in us unused. (Shakespeare 4.4.36-39)
The effect of this passage corresponds to Hieronimo’s soliloquy, as Hamlet argues that action
is inevitable, as everything around him spurs him towards it.
However, Hamlet’s main unsympathetic characteristic is the failure to portray remorse
for the killing. Moreover, the perplexity of Hamlet focuses on more issues than only revenge,
and Hamlet is not always in the centre of the stage. In addition, Hamlet is not as resolute as
Hieronimo at this stage of his revenge. For instance, Hamlet does not show guilt for killing
Polonius: “Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell! / I took thee for thy better”
(Shakespeare 3.4.31-32), or for killing Rosencrantz or Guildenstern, whose deaths he either
directly or indirectly causes: “They are not near my conscience. Their defeat / Does by their
own insinuation grow” (Shakespeare 5.2.57-58). Based on these carefree comments about the
lives he has ended, it seems that his earlier reluctance against murder have abandoned him.
However, that is not to say that Hamlet has become an old-school avenger. As Polonius’s death
was accidental, Hamlet has already fallen into committing a sin, which has spoiled his nature.
In addition, much like Hieronimo’s need for self-defence, the deaths of Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern filled the same function for Hamlet. Hieronimo’s unwarranted killing of the
unknowing Castile has the same unsympathetic effect on him. Instead, the unsympathetic
traits both characters acquire should be interpreted within their context. For that reason, we
should interpret both Shakespeare and Kyd’s use of a hero going bad as an intentional element.

19
In light of such an interpretation, both characters succeed in revealing one of their main
characterisations.
A main pillar within both texts is an absence of justice that results in the need for
personal revenge. Essentially, the tragic path both protagonists have to pursue depicts the
corrupting consequences of a failed justice. Their initial reluctance to revenge highlights this
aspect as both characters transform from intellectual, philosophical, characters, abiding to
justice and moral codes into a foul image of themselves, as they must take revenge. For in their
inevitable situations, both authors have pitted their reluctant avengers in an unjust setting.
The setting thereby represents a broken social order. The use of corrupted and villainous
aristocracies as the motifs for those in charge adds to the cause of this social order “out of joint”
(Shakespeare 1.5.188). Hamlet, who faces the highest monarch of his nation and Hieronimo
against high-ranking members of the nobility in both Portugal and Spain exemplify this aspect.
The tragic consequences of their undesired revenge underscore the main meaning of both
texts: a lawless society breads nothing but death and chaos. In such a society, the need for
personal revenge will arise. In discussing the value of the characters, it is evident that both
Shakespeare and Kyd accurately depict what the tragic consequences of personal revenge
entail.
To conclude, in contrast to the belief that Hieronimo strives for a violent, personal
revenge in a homage to the old-school depiction of the avenger, this essay demonstrates the
opposite. By juxtaposing Hamlet and Hieronimo, it is evident that both characters possess
equal complexity as avengers. Their first defining similarity is evident in their need to find
justification before taking revenge. Instead of running amok and killing their alleged villains,
both characters show a reluctance to personal revenge as they undertake a simulated judicial
process in order to let justice take its cause. Secondly, both characters culminate their struggle
with the morality of revenge in their will to commit suicide. The effect of portraying their inner
turmoil with the severity of suicide conveys both characters’ similar comment on the
illogicality of punishing evil with evil. The final aspect conveys a vital meaning within their

20
texts in relation to the tragic consequences of revenge. Due to their failures to obtain justice
against their high-ranking villains, their unjust situation forces both characters into revenge.
By forcing their characters into their revenge and making justice unobtainable, both authors
mirror what a corrupt social order will cause as a cavalcade of deaths follow.
The shared features between Hieronimo and Hamlet confirm that both characters are
worthy of equal acclaim as prototypical avengers. The core components both characters share
consist of a reluctance to revenge and an examination of the morality of the action itself.
Whereas the eloquently perplexing poetry of Hamlet stands for itself, it does not convey the
same definite statement on revenge as Kyd achieves in The Spanish Tragedy. Hieronimo
conveys a significant message, which Shakespeare later endorses. Instead of glorifying
Hieronimo’s actions, Kyd shows that people murdering each other for the sake of revenge
results in chaos. Thus, Kyd, as accurately as Shakespeare, shows that the effects of a corrupt
social order results in a national tragedy, as both Spain and Denmark suffer the consequences
of Hieronimo and Hamlet’s revenge.

21
 Works Cited

Blackwell, Anna. "Revenge and the Superhuman: Hamlet and the Superhero Blockbuster." The
Shakespeare Institute Review 2.1 (2013) : 6-10. Web. 20 Jan. 2015.
Boyce, Charles. Critical Companion to William Shakespeare: A Literary Reference to His Life
and Work. New York: Facts on File. 2005. Print.
Eliot, T.S. “Hamlet’s Problems.” The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism. London:
Methuen, 1920. 87-94. Print.
Gottschalk, Paul. “Hamlet and the Scanning of Revenge.” Shakespeare Quarterly 24.2 (1973):
155-170. JSTOR Journals. Web. 9 Sept. 2014.
Hackett, Helen. A Short History Of English Renaissance Drama. London: I.B.Tauris, 2013.
eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 23 Oct. 2014.
Hanson, Elizabeth. “Fellow Students: Hamlet, Horatio, and the Early Modern University.”
Shakespeare Quarterly 62.2 (2011): 205-301. Project MUSE. Web. 8 Nov. 2014.
Kermode, Frank. “Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.” The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore
Evans. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974. 1135-140. Print.
Kyd, Thomas. “The Spanish Tragedy.” Five Revenge Tragedies. Ed. Emma Smith. London:
Penguin Classics, 2012. 1-96. Print.
Levin, Michael Henry. “’Vindicta Mihi!’: Meaning, Morality, and Motivation in The Spanish
Tragedy.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 4.2 (1964): 307-324. JSTOR Journals.
Web. 5 Dec. 2014.
Madeleine, Richard. “Hamlet as Proto-Detective Fiction.” AUMLA 117 (2012): 1-11. Web. 29
Nov. 2014.
Ratliff, John D. “Hieronimo Explains Himself.” Studies in Philology 54.2 (1957): 112-18. JSTOR
Journals. Web. 5 Dec. 2014.
Wetmore, Kevin J. “Thinking upon Revenge.” Revenge Drama in European Renaissance and
Japanese Theatre: From Hamlet to Madame Butterfly. Ed. Kevin J Wetmore. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. 1-29. Web. Google Books. Web. 20 Dec. 2014.

22
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, Robert A. Kaster, and Martha Craven Nussbaum. Anger, Mercy,
Revenge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost).
Web. 20 Jan. 2015.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Susanne L. Wofford. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's
Press, 1994. Print.
Stull, William L. “‘This Metamorphosde Tragoedie’: Thomas Kyd, Cyril Tourneur, and the
Jacobean Theatre of Cruelty.” ARIEL 14.3 (1983): 35-49. Web. 2 Nov. 2014
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with The Apocrypha. Ed. Michael D. Coogan. New York:
Oxford UP, 2010. Print. Rev. Standard Version.
Watson, Robert N. “Tragedy.” The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama. Ed.
A. R. Braunmuller and Michael Hattaway. 2nd ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP,
2003. 292-343. Print.
Wofford, Susanne L. “Introduction: Biographical and Historical Contexts.” Hamlet. Ed.
Susanne L. Wofford. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1994. 3-26. Print.

23