Dara Miller

ENG 428

Dr. Royster

9 April 2012

Bettering Revenge: Surpassing Justice in Seneca’s Thyestes

In Act Two of Senca’s Thyestes, Atreus asserts, “You cannot say you have

avenged a crime unless you better it,” as he plots against his brother. In Linda

Woodbridge’s article, “Getting what one deserves,” she examines the popularity of the

revenge play during the English Renaissance, and claims the revenge theme “reveal[s]

widespread resentment of systemic unfairness” (7) towards multiple levels of society. Her

argument revolves around the concept of fair payment, and she divides the societal

reactions that feed revenge plays into four primary violations: “unrewarded merit,

unmerited reward, unpunished guilt, and undeserved punishment” (7), and then further

organizes her analysis according to issues of economical, political, and social unfairness.

By dividing her argument into these similar but yet markedly different components,

Woodbridge creates a convincing case for the popularity and sustainability of revenge

plays during this era. Her analysis does illuminate much of the motivation behind the

actions in Thyestes; however, it does not fully account for the sheer excess of violence

and over-retribution commonly found in revenge plays. Although she does recognize that

revenges typically “exceed the original offense in quantity or intensity,” her examination

of the causes of this imbalance is overly brief, and does not serve to fully explain the

reasoning behind Atreus’ brutal actions towards Thyestes in Seneca’s play.

Miller 1

Woodbridge, in shaping her argument, frames her thesis with a description of the

modern tendency to gloss over the gory and sensational aspects of revenge plays as

somehow worthy of less merit, but then aptly points to the equally revenge-focused

themes running throughout some of the Renaissance’s most respected dramas. In an

intriguing overview of the scope revenge plays’ popularity in context, she succinctly lists

highlights of a wide variety of characters’ extreme measures to win revenge, and then

convincingly claims that “the sheer number of revenge plots attests to theme’s

popularity,” (7) no matter how much modern audiences may wince at the thought. In

establishing her argument, Woodbridge then poses a series of questions that stress the

paradoxical nature of the fact that this Christian, monarchical, and hierarchical culture

would place so much value on plays that seemed to flaunt all they purportedly valued.

This seeming contradiction, she claims, stems from the common people’s

frustration with the social structures of their culture; thus, “Dramatic revenge mimics

Tudor law, where ‘condign’ penalties suited crimes – thieves’ hands were cut off, scolds’

tongues bridled,” (6) and the majority of the people felt the pressure of various forms of

social or economic oppression. Although her subsequent division of the varying levels of

unfairness is neatly supported by her extensive references to different plays, her section

on “Unpunished Guilt” is perhaps slightly oversimplified, especially in relation to plays

such as Thyestes. In Seneca’s work, the threat of unpunished guilt extends far beyond

playing the “judicial system’s evil twin;” (9) on the contrary, Atreus’ need to eradicate

any trace of unpunished guilt surpasses the judicious cautions of his minister. Also, her

discussion of this concept implies that revenge plays provided a cathartic solution to the

real reflections of unpunished guilt people observed or experienced in their daily lives,

Miller 2

therefore additionally suggesting that one purpose of the revenge play structure is to

bring the unpunished criminal to justice, at least in metaphor. This implication, however,

fails to take into consideration the morally ambiguous endings of plays such as Thyestes;

according to the narrative, the character of Thyestes had already been justly punished by

being stripped of his rank and power.

Miller 3