“‘Send Him,’ Quoted [Minos],’ to our infernal-king,/ To Doom Him as Best Seems His Majesty” (1.1.52-2). The Spanish Tragedy’s opening monologue contains these lines that introduce Thomas Kyd’s overarching question – the question of Don Andrea’s “doom”. In the Underworld, Aeacus (the king) and Rhadamanth (the queen) argue about Don Andrea’s fate. Don Andrea is easily overlooked in this play because the plots of revenge are being carried out by the other characters. But his role should not go unnoticed. Don Andrea is the Chorus and instigator of the revenge plots. They all fall under his revenge. The underworld can’t decide his fate, but if Andrea is that important, why not? The play has many scenes that show how inefficient the underworld system is. Kyd must decide whether The Spanish Tragedy represents the underworld in a flattering but not accurate way, or is a statement about its inefficiency. This essay asserts that Don Andrea’s struggle to survive is a critique against the dominant English concept of what the afterlife was.
He asks if “he may consort [his] friends in pleasing sort,/ And on [his] foes work just and sharp revenge” and states his desire to “be judge and doom them to unrest” (4.5.15-6, 29-30). He says he wants to “be a judge and bring them unrest”, and asks “may he consort his friends in pleasing manner/And on [his] enemies work just and sharp retribution” (4.5.15-6). It is not clear, despite the fact that the play revolves around Don Andrea’s desire for revenge, who or what grants him the right to decide on the fates other people. This is especially true of those who did not participate in his murder. Don Andrea is clearly avenging those who are directly involved with his death, but why he would decide the fate of others without their involvement is not clear. Kyd shows underworld justice to be a system based on a lack of impartiality. No character is able to make objective judgments about how morality affects the characters’ eternal fate. Revenge agrees when Don Andrea explains how he plans to punish the others, after explaining in gruesome details his sadistic plan. He commits himself to executing Don Andrea’s wishes, with no evidence that his judgment is right.
The play also questions the relationship between revenge and justice. Why does Don Andrea have the right to revenge his death? Why does he go to Revenge for? The text argues, in part, that Don Andrea died unjustly, as a result of “young Don Balthazar ruthless fury,/ Taking benefit of his opponent’s distress.” (1.4.23) Horatio later gives an emotional account of the way he buried Andrea, despite Andrea’s “rites of burying” not having been performed on time. Don Balthazar, who killed Andrea, was said to be unsportsmanlike. It’s important to keep in mind that Andrea was murdered on the battle field, where all soldiers were anticipating their own deaths. Andrea was not poisoned or ambushed like Horatio, nor was she killed in a secret as so many revenge play characters are. Andrea was aware of the stakes.
The ambiguity that surrounds Don Andrea’s death forces readers into questioning the efficiency and usefulness of the system. Kyd’s 60th century audience would expect the underworld to represent the true reality of afterlife. However, the play portrays the justice process in the Underworld as being based on superficial, and even flippant judgments. Pluto let Proserpine determine Don Andrea’s destiny when she pleaded that only Proserpine could decide his fate. Pluto liked this and sealed the deal by kissing her (1.1.79-80). Pluto deciding the fate of a lover by determining his destiny casts serious doubt on underworld’s legitimacy. How can a system that is so indecisive, and even a little arbitrary, be effective?
It’s also important that Don Andrea is not a dual role – both lover and soldier. Kyd, on the other hand, argues that Don Andrea’s dual nature is enough to confuse and cause indecision within the underworld. This leaves him without a clear fate. Minos says, “Don Andrea lived and die in love./ For his love he tested the fortunes of wars./ By war’s fate he lost both his love and life.” Rhadamanth argues with Aeacus about different interpretations. Could something as insignificant as being a lover AND a soldier be sufficient to disrupt the underworld system? Rhadamanth, Aeacus, and Don Andrea disagreed over Don Andrea’s fate. However, this does not prove that it cannot be decided. Pluto was sent to sentence him. Pluto doesn’t take this decision seriously. He lets Proserpine make the final decision. Don Andrea’s destiny is not revealed at the end. Don Andrea, who is both a lover and a fighter, is too complex for the underworld to comprehend. How can someone’s destiny be determined so simply? Kyd undercuts the idea of underworld justice because he portrays it as a poor way to determine a person’s eternal future.
The play structure itself alluded to the imperfections in the underworld. The play, in particular, portrays revenge to be devastating and endless. Even though death may have ended the misery of many characters, revenge will still be the beginning of their tragedy (4.5.47-8). Don Andrea’s desire to avenge himself is able to decide the fate of many characters, which could lead us into an endless regress. Don Andrea is able to doom the lives of many characters, and this can lead to mass destruction. The plot is built on the idea that revenge is destructive and infinite. It’s no surprise, then, that most characters die from revenge. But their eternal fates depend on how they act. The underworld, it is implied, is of an unethical nature. The fate of each character is determined solely by how they act in the revenge story. Their fates are then reduced to what Revenge likes or doesn’t like and the feelings that a vengeful Ghost has. Kyd undermines underworld ethics by letting revenge – which is a destructive idea in the play – decide the fates. Kyd’s system of determining the fate of souls through vicious revenge is unlikely to have been endorsed by him, as opposed to religious afterlives, which are the alternative.
Kyd could have been criticizing revenge instead of the underworld? “Soloman and Perseda” is a play-within a-play that represents revenge through deceit and trickery. “Soloman and Perseda”, a play within a play, is a dramatic portrayal of revenge that involves trickery and deceit. The discord between human groups is what also drives revenge. The play highlights the damaging and immoral nature that revenge can have. It is sad that revenge can extend into the next life. However, we still have to question why Don Andrea is the main character and the one who has the final say in the story. Don Andrea will be the one most punished if the play criticizes revenge. He is the most fortunate of the dead in terms his eternal fate. Kyd uses revenge criticism to illustrate the injustice in the underworld.
The Spanish Tragedy’s unjust character reflects a profound pessimism. Kyd doesn’t offer an alternative to the fate-decision system in the mythic Underworld. The underworld of The Spanish Tragedy may represent the flawed justice system in our world; or, Kyd might not believe that there is an afterlife. The instances of injustice that occur in the underworld suggest that our fates and lives may be determined, if at all, by an unjust and arbitrary force. Of course, the corresponding clichA (c) is that fate blinds. The Spanish Tragedy presents a dark version of life, both in this world and in the next. Kyd suggests that if life is so unfair, then the fate of mankind in eternity may be equally hopeless.
Bibliography
No, this is not correct. The two terms are not interchangeable. “Works Cited” typically refers to a list of sources cited in the body of a research paper. A “bibliography” is a list of sources consulted, even if not cited, in the research process.
Kyd, Thomas. A play about sorrowful events that took place in Spain. Ed. Emma Smith was the name. The 1998 Penguin Books edition of London was published.
Comments are closed.