Revenge and Sociality

HUANG Yan-li

Revenge permeates most of Shakespeare’s plays， and scholars understand the themes in historical context. Some believe that the plays involved revenge are evidence that the public was morally opposed to it. For others， however， these plays expressed the frustrations and desires for justice because revenge could be used to eliminate social diseases and ensure social order. The justice crisis of revenge play reflects the judicial crisis in the early modern English legal system. Pufendorf believes that sociality is decisive factor of social order. The law in a hierarchical society has its natural bias， which will inevitably lead to social inequality and do harm to the cultivation of sociality. Shakespeare’s stage reproduces the crisis and threat faced by the whole judiciary due to a large number of social injustice in the early stage of modern British legal transformation， and reveals the great impact of sociality on the community.

Keywords： Shakespeare， revenge， sociality， Pufendorf， order

Introduction

The Renaissance was the flourishing time of British drama and emerged a large number of excellent dramatists and wonderful plays. Revenge play also gained a certain central position at this time. Some critics even believe that all tragedies in the Elizabethan period should be presented as tragedies about revenge.（Campbell， 1931， p. 290）. In fact， in addition to the recognized and specific revenge plays， many Elizabethan tragedies all involved element or plot of revenge. It is a little improper to say that drama without revenge element is pale， but it undoubtedly adds unique charm to drama， especially tragedy， and presents a unique visual feast. Revenge permeated most of Shakespeare’s plays， only two did not involve the plot of revenge. Revenge play was one of the most popular types of drama in the Elizabethan period， and the frequent performance in the theater showed the audience’s enthusiasm about it. England was not a feud culture like Scotland， or Friuli in Italy， then why did a Christian nation relish vengeful and （often） religiously skeptical plays？ （Muir， 1993， p. 275）. In a tolerance-emphasized Christian society， the popularity of revenge play must signified something. In a feudal kingdom， stage avengers’ assassinating kings or nobles deserves exploration. In the revenge play， the avenger chooses private revenge， which is undoubtedly a distrust of the official institutions that provide fairness and justice. Revenge is not only the innate nature of human beings， but also the main element affecting social order， but also the focus of national law. In the long-term social unrest， the political and religious struggle has brought not only extreme depression and inescapable pessimism in spirit， but also physical mutilation and killing. As a result， death became the central theme and image of the culture of that era. A large number of litigation cases have increased， putting unprecedented pressure on the whole judicial institution.

Revenge as the Twin of Law

The modern law is undergoing a process of profound transformation and professionalisation （Dunne， 2016， p. 2）. The justice of personal revenge is full of “uncertainty”. Public revenge has become the trend of social development and the condition of social order because public vengeance is the exclusive property of well-policed societies， and our society calls it the judicial system （Girard， 1988， p. 15）. However， “the flawed justice system itself that often acts as a spur to vengeance in the first place” （Dunne， 2016， p. 2）. When public revenge could not make up the losses of avengers， they would step out of the law and get justice in their own ways. The two views on revenge derived from pagan tradition and Christian religion are contradictory， and could never be reconciled. Both are accepted because of their own legitimacy and reasonableness， and also suspected or condemned because of their own flaws and unreasonableness. The contradiction between private revenge and public revenge is the anxiety reflection in the process of British modern legal construction. Stage avengers often met corrupted legal system， “God’s justice could be slow， his earthly representatives corrupt， the machinery of state out of order， so that flagrant wrongs went unpunished， and this is the usual premise of the English revenge play” （Burnett， 1998， p. 21）. Therefore， scholar like Watson regarded revenge as “an important supplement to official justice in an era of very limited police powers” （Watson， 2002， p. 160）. Dramatic revenge imitates the Tudor law and gives the avenger punishment corresponding to his “crime”—the thieves’ hands are cut off and the scolding tongue bridled.1 When Othello wanted to revenge his “betraying” wife， he took corresponding revenge and suffocated Desdemona on the defiled bed by her. When Titus Andronicus’ son avenged him， Shakespeare also emphasized this equivalence， “Can the son’s eye behold his father bleed？ / There’s meed for meed， death for a deadly deed”（5.3.64-65）. Hamlet gave up a good chance of killing his uncle to revenge his father， because Claudius was confessing his crime at that time. king him would send him to heaven， which would make Hamlet’s revenge lose its equivalence， because his murdered father could not enter heaven. In many Elizabethan and Jacobean revenge plays， the violence and the strong emotion of the avenger are so strange that any social or ethical observation is submerged in the plots.

Titus Andronicus is full of Seneca bloody scenes， which caused a lot negative criticism from the scholars. Schlegel concluded that this play was “an accumulation of cruelties and enormities” （Schlegel， 1879， p. 442）， Wilson thought it like “some broken-down cart， laden with bleeding corpses from an Elizabethan scaffold”（Wilson， 1948， p. x）. However， some scholar also have positive criticism on Titus Andronius， arguing his revenge（killing the emperor） saves Rome （Woodbridge， 2010， pp. 173-174）. Posner believes that revenge play mirrors the prevailing ambivalent attitude in Shakespeare’s society （Posner， 2009， p. 108）. Bacon described revenge as a kind of “wild justice”. Bacon was firm in his attitude towards revenge. The more human nature likes to revenge， the more the law should eradicate it. Because first of all， the offender only violates the law， and the revenge of the wrong makes the law out of office. This seems to support the authority of English laws and deny individual revenge， but it also recognizes the “justice” of private revenge. According to the interpretation of the Oxford Dictionary， the word “wild” holds a lot of meanings， having no discipline or natural and innate. Wild justice implies that justice is endowed by nature and reveals the legal characteristics at that time in an indirect way： law and justice are not necessarily linked， sometimes even spear and shield. Revenge on the Elizabethan stage was regarded as a “perverted form of justice” （Woodbridge， 2010， p. 9）. Similarly， this view shows that sometimes revenge embodied justice. Thus， revenge could be seen as the dark twin of law， which is not complete justice， but has its own reasonableness.

Revenge as a Therapy

Revenge is closely related to social order. In the context of body politics and ancient medical theories in the Renaissance， revenge is regarded as a therapy to get rid of the diseases caused by immoral harm to tragic characters. In connection with the prevailing analogy between the big cosmos and the small cosmos at that time， revenge is also an effective way to eliminate the diseases of the national regime， purify the increasingly polluted national community， rectify the decaying morality and corrupted politics. Harris believes that revenge brought avengers physiological damage and thus a major cause of melancholy （Harris， 2004， p. 101）. Graham regards revenge an obsessive passion， which produced symptomatic ill-health and nervous disorders. （Holderness， 1987， p. 51）. Prosser also believes that revenge caused “deterioration of the mind” （Prosser， 1971， p. 8）. Obviously， revenge may cause patients’ psychological and physical diseases， so Titus and Hamlet are associated with madness and depression. Not only the Avenger is ill， but the avenged is also ill. According to the body fluid theory of the Renaissance， the four body fluids in the human body are essential to health. The four body fluids correspond to the four elements in the universe. The distribution of the four elements affects the order of the universe. The mixing of the four body fluids in the human body determines the temperament， personality and health of the human body. The human body and even the human morality and soul are related to the mixing of body fluids. People with a lot of blood have excess lust， people with a lot of yellow bile are irritable， people with a lot of black bile are thoughtful and melancholy， and people with a lot of phlegm are timid and dull. The Roman emperor lost his reason and turned Tamora， the enemy of Rome， into the queen of Rome. The combination of the two meant that bad blood and good blood blend together， and the healthy Roman regime was infected. At the same time， the purity of girls was closely related to the glory of the family. Lavinia’s humiliation represented that the pure blood of the Roman general’s family was stained by the blood of other races. Finally， infection leaded to a social crisis， killing and rape fill the whole play， the harmonious order disappeared， and the whole country and government fell into a state of disease. Shakespeare used humoral rhetoric to write the process of illness and therapy of the Roman regime. At the very beginning of the play， Titus sacrificed Tamora’s eldest son in the ritual for the dead Roman soldiers. Tamora begged “stain not thy tomb with blood” （1.1.116）， which suggested the alien blood was dirty. And she said “l(fā)et my spleenful sons this trull deflower” （2.3.191）. With her hands cut off and her tongue out， Lavinia used her mouth and stumps to write the name of the murderers. Her uncle， Marcus， exclaimed “What， what！ the lustful sons of Tamora/Performers of this heinous， bloody deed ？” （4.1.79-80）. Medical terminology rhetoric reveals that the “l(fā)ust” of the perpetrator is the result of excess body fluid. In Marcos’s words， lust is directly related to blood color. In Hamlet， the combination of Gertrude and Claudius was also a sign that bad blood polluted healthy blood. Hamlet lamented “tis an unweeded garden/That grows to seed，things rank and gross in nature/Possess it merely” （1.2.135-7）. In Shakespeare’s time， gardens are often used to be a metaphor of kingdom. Gardens full of weeds are undoubtedly a metaphor for social disorder and crisis. His mother got married to his uncle quickly after his father’s death was no nobler than an animal， for “a beast that wants discourse of reason/Would have mourned longer” （1.2.150）.

Cosmology and humoral theory are the most popular theories and concepts in the Renaissance， which not only permeated the political and ideological ideas， but also reflected in literary works such as poetry and drama. Correlation had been established among cosmos， regime and human body in the cosmology system composed of microcosm-macrocosm correspondence. Analogy between nature and human were common in all areas. The harmony of the human body metaphors the harmony between the state and the universe， and the disease of the human body metaphors the disorder of the state and the chaos of the universe. On the contrary， it is also the case. Under this analogy network， words such as disease， chaos， corruption and death became the main rhetorical discourse to write about the state of government， social order and human health. England regarded disease “as a state of internal imbalance…. caused by humoral disarray or deficiency”. At the same time， external factors may also cause diseases， because body is open and easy to be harmed by “an excess of melancholy， phlegm， or choler， or a deficiency of blood” （Harris， 2004， p. 13）. Disease originates from the human body itself and external factors. Everyone is an individual in society. Social order exists in the collection of countless individuals. Similarly， the destruction of order is the result of the joint action of internal and external forces. The Roman emperor introduced wolves into the house and made the evil tamorra a member of the royal family. The protector of the state subverted his duties and obligations and personally welcomed the “external virus” into the original healthy Roman regime. Lavinia， the daughter of the Roman general， was defiled. Her pure blood was stained with the septic blood of the son of Tamora. The “virus” will infect the whole family and the Roman Empire through her body. According to the Renaissance cosmology system and analogy ideas， the diseases， social order and nature are related. When Titus discovered the tragedy of Lavinia and was cheated into cutting off his arm that had waved a sword to defend Rome， but in exchange for heads of his two sons， Titus couldn’t restrain his grief and shouted“When heaven doth weep， doth not the earth o’erflow？/ If the winds rage， doth not the sea wax mad” （3.1.222-3）. The diseases and social disorder would bring changes in climate.

Since the human disease is related to the social order and the health of the national regime， how to treat the disease， lead the chaotic social order back to the right track and restore national harmony has become the core of the drama plot. Revenge has become an effective way to cure disease and reestablish order out of chaos. When the state organizations failed to perform the function of the judicial system and let the victims get justice， public revenge failed. In Hamlet and Titus Andronius， the victims need to revenge the persons standing on the top of the feudal hierarchy. Thus the law is not the embodiment of justice， but the exercise of violence. The unfair judicial system urges the victims to take private revenge. Resorting to private revenge shows distrust of the official institutions that guarantee fairness and show law and justice， or it is a helpless choice under the inaction of public revenge. Gregory Semenza expressed his ideas on Elizabethan revenge， saying because the legal system was less effective， the impulse toward self-government was greater （Semenza， 2006， p. 54） . On the one hand， the concept of blood revenge originated from the Germanic traditionas still had a certain influence in the Elizabethan society. At that time， the legal system was problematic， and there were many problems in legal practice， such as the competition for jurisdiction， the corruption of judges， the reversal of black and white by lawyers， etc.； On the other hand， the specialization and centralization of law are increasingly strengthened. Facing this situation， the English people are in a state of anxiety in the process of early legal construction in England. The Christian doctrine of tolerance prohibits the victims from taking private revenge， but the less effective legal mechanism can not achieve public revenge. They are in a moral dilemma. “Shakespeare’s plays show a deeper penetration into the nature of the ethical dilemma involved in revenge … than do the plays of his contemporaries” （Prosser， 1971， p. 94）. “All the voices of Church and State inveighed against revenge” （Prosser， 1971， p. xi）， and the ghost was regarded as the label of the devil， because ordering others to take revenge was contrary to Christian doctrine. But a close reading of the dramatic texts of this period revealed that revenge was therapeutic. Many Avengers were people deprived of power and treated unfairly. They suffered a lot， and revenge was used as a tool to “restore their integrity – their sense of psychic wholeness” （Keyishian， 1995， p. 2）. Thus， through revenge， avengers got a feeling of “voluptas” （Burnett， 1998， pp. 1-2）. What’s more， revenge was also considered as bloodletting therapy in classical medicine. Excess or mixture of body fluids was the root of body diseases and even social disorder. Cutting the skin and bloodletting was a fast and effective treatment. The perpetrator had “excess body fluid”. The atrocity caused the avenger’s severe emotional fluctuations such as sadness， anger and depression， and makes the avenger’s body fluid in disorder. Revenge cleaned the enemy and the avenger himself through surgical bleeding， their diseases can be treated， and the harmonious state of body fluids could be reestablished. According to the analogy between the microcosmos and the macrocosmos， the cure of physical diseases also represents the recovery of social order. Burnett found that Greek myths and legends conveyed a view： all order was actually based on revenge. Revenge was not a crime that people must abolish if they wanted to enter a regulated group. It is not “the opposite of order” but the “original and vital form” of revenge. And thus the public revenge was just a borrowed version of each man’s “ingrained right” to revenge （Burnett， 1998， p. 64）. Considering the humanists’admiration of ancient Greek culture in the Renaissance， perhaps Shakespeare intentionally mimicked Greece myths and represent the idea of reconstructing social order through revenge.

Revenge and Oppression

Revenge is the product of anger and response after encountering physical or mental harm. Othello was rarely regarded as a revenge play by readers， audiences and even researchers of Shakespeare’s play. However， the play had been inseparable from revenge at the beginning. Iago carefully planned his revenge for Othello because of his unfair treatment. Othello mistakenly believed his wife’s infidelity because of Iago’s deception. The story ended with the common demise of the avenger and the avenged. Revenge also played an important role in The Merchant of Venice， and the related anti-Semitism research has also attracted extensive attention. Although Shylock was a usury merchant， his actual evil deeds were not described in theplay. Antonio’s disgust of him originated from his Jewish identity， which was the general attitude of Christians towards Jews at that time. Jews were considered to be the descendants of the murderer of Jesus and were prohibited from engaging in any decent work. Many Jews choose the usury. Antonio abused Shylock in public， his transactions and the money he earned， which made Shylock determined to retaliate against him as soon as he had a chance. The cause of revenge in the two plays comes from the social inequality and oppression the characters suffered， so as to stimulate the desire for revenge and put it into action.

Othello begins with Iago’s reason for revenge. He explained to Roderigo that he has been treated unfairly in society—although he was recommended by three important people， he failed to get the promotion. What makes him most angry was that Othello chose a “great arithmetican” as his assistant. In this period， numbers are often used to represent military arrangements. The word arithmetician was used both in business and military. Here it means a student of “the bookish theoric”， indicating Cassio is only proficient in book knowledge of military tactics. （Wilson， 2009， p. 142）. He accused Cassio of being a Florentine never leading a team of soldiers. Although he had some book knowledge， he was not as good as a woman who was always in her boudoir. Finally， Iago stated his reasons for being more qualified for promotion. He performed well in battles in Rhodes， at Cyprus， and on other grounds Christian and heathen， and pointed out that Othello had seen this with his own eyes. Moreover， his original position should be above Cassio， but Cassio was “promoted beyond his rank” to replace him as deputy general. Iago complained that the promotion of the army did not rely on individual merit and the traditional sequential supplement rules， but on the favor of the officers. This inequality planted the seed of revenge. Unlike other procrastinating avengers， Iago’s revenge is fast and quick. In addition to the promotion issue， Iago suspected that Othello and Cassio had an affair with his wife， so he decided to set up a trap to revenge Othello and start from Desdemona， because only “wife for wife” could make his revenge equitable （2.1.285-6）. Berry observes that “class resentment permeates Iago” （Berry， 1988， p. 115）.

Shakespeare further exposed the class inequality and oppression. In the first scene of the second act， Cassio showed different attitudes towards “superiors and subordinates”. He warmly welcomed Desdemona， but“humiliated” Iago. He kissed Amelia openly， showing his right to “get along freely with his “subordinate’s wife”， claiming that it was polite according to his breeding， but for Iago it was not. He asked Iago not to be angry， “Let it not gall your patience” （2.1.97）. However， the word “gall” might sharpen the insult for its meaning of causing saddle sores. Honigmann concluded that “audiences must have recognized a familiar class barrier between that condescending ‘good Iago’ and the word ‘Sir’” （83）. Once after Cassion got drunken， he sharped the class oppression. They talked about salvation， and Cassio claimed “Not before me. The lieutenant is to be saved before the ensign” （2.3.98-99）. For Iago， the promotion position that he should have obtained was “taken” by Cassio and used as a weapon to attack himself. Iago’s hatred for Cassio would grow and his resentment against social oppression would also intensify. Desdemona joined the disparaging attack on Iago too. She used “you” to Cassio， but “Thou” to Iago， indicating that she thought the former belonged to the same class as her and the latter belonged to a lower social class. Iago were surrounded by class inequalities. Othello turned a blind eye to the merits he made in battles； Cassio took away his promotion， flirted with his wife recklessly and humiliated him face to face； Desdemona unconsciously showed her superiority of the class. All these made Iago an avenger and conspirator， carefully designing a series of traps， and using Othello to capture the three “enemies”.

Similarly， in The Merchant of Venice， Shylock remained unmoved by the pleas and advice of the people and insisted on revenge against Antonio， which was the consequence of the resentment of long-term oppression. He could no longer restrain his desire for revenge. Shakespeare clearly showed in his plays that the persecution and oppression of Jews in the whole society were not covered up， and Shylock admitted that it was their national characteristic to endure persecution. Antonio did not do physical harm to Shylock， nor did he involve the flow of blood， but Shylock’s revenge was for the purpose of blood， because the mental injury and pain he suffered needed“bloodletting treatment”. This desire for revenge came from resentment against social inequality and oppression.In the second loan negotiation， Bassanio used “you” to Shylock （May you stead me？/ Will you please me？ /Shall I know your answer？）， but Antonio ignored it. He did not want to give Shylock equal social status， but used the way of calling his name directly or the subordinate “Thou”. He arrogantly made an order rather than a request. He rudely interrupted Shylock twice， call him “villain”， “evil” and “apple rotten” （1.3.94-102）. In the face of Antonio’s pride and despise， Shylock still agreed to lend him money. Of course， there was a professional need. But the more important reason was that he wanted to repay his deep hatred. A shrewd businessman should know that such a move was very dangerous. He was not only taking revenge against an individual， but also challenging a class. Even in Venice， where the business economy was developed and the contract was relatively fair， his leapfrog behavior would touch the nerves of the rulers. In order to ask Antonio to follow the contract， he would rather than threaten the Duke of Venice. Even several times of interest could not make him give up his “l(fā)odged hate and a certain loathing” （4.1.60）. This hysterical desire for revenge hid his desire for equality. His“declaration of equality” made readers and audiences have a multi-dimensional understanding of the character image that should be hated， rather than a simple disgust. “Hath not a Jew eyes？ hath not a Jew hands， organs， dimensions， senses， affections，… as a Christian is？… Should we not revenge” （3.1.54-63）. This series of rhetorical questions directly pointed to one question： what is the difference between Jews and Christians？

Stanley Cavell found it very puzzling that Shylock just accepted the “judicial interpretation” of Portia. Although the reversal was common in drama， this was abrupt and unreasonable. After listening to Portia’s interpretation of “cutting a pound of meat”， Shylock gave up all protests and arguments. He emerged from being eloquent into speechless， and collapsed visibly. Stanley took it as the embodiment of Shylock’s loss of discourse power. Although he could continue to argue a pound of meat contain blood， Shylock gave up. Cavell believed that Shylock became speechless because he realized that even destroying Antonio could not change the oppression endured by the Jews， or because he realized that he could not deny that the contract had nothing to do with blood， because he really wanted the blood of Christians. （Cavell， 2013， pp. 221-229）. In fact， Shylock’s“aphasia” was caused by his weakness and inability before “judicial interpretation”， although he signed a contract protected by the law with Antonio， the implementation and interpretation of the law would never favor a Jewish pagan， and he could only silently endure what was coming to him. He kept half his property temporarily at the cost of giving up his faith. Portia kept pushing Shylock， asking him aggressively “Art thou contented， Jew？ /what dost thou say？” （4.1.388-90）.

Conclusion

Oppression goes hand in hand with resistance. In order to pursue equality， people must rise up against oppression. Iago and Shylock are not special in the social environment. They each represented a group of people in the society. These dramatic characters had their own shortcomings and deficiencies， just as the people they represent did. When they encounter unfair treatment， they would desire to revenge， take retaliatory actions， and disrupt social order. In fact， while denying revenge， the audience and readers could not help but sympathize and understand these characters. From 1581 to1602， at least 35 riots broke out in London， and a social historian even said “it seemed as if the whole fabric of the urban community might be about to disintegrate” （Dunne， 2016， p. 72）. The desire for revenge caused the disintegration of the community， made the society step into disorder and the avengers look disgusting， but actually the source of revenge came from the alienation of the avenger.According to Pufendorf， people establish a state or community because of their security needs， and members of the community have social obligations to each other. Obviously， social order depends on the performance of obligations. Pufendorf believed that man concerned about self-preservation. Without the help of his companions， he could protect himself and benefit a lot from mutual assistance. At the same time， he is “malicious， aggressive， provoked and willing to do harm to others” （Pufendorf， 1991， p. 35）. Pufendorf saw the weakness and evil in human nature and proposed to use sociality as a weapon to deal with it. Thus it is necessary for ever people to be sociable， not only because of people’ vulnerability to other animals， but also their own evil and lust. In the process of socialization， people should cultivate and preserve “sociality”. Pufendorf believes sociality is the foundation and justification of natural laws. It does not mean “the tendency that people have to form a specific social form”， but “an attitude that people get along with each other and subject to its constraints”. It requires people should treat others with a kind， peaceful and friendly attitude and bear mutual obligations. The realization of self security requires individuals to fulfill social obligations and abide by the law. However， social inequality alienates the revenger and makes them “others”， and community is no longer the guarantee of security， but the source of danger， so the revenger is often lonely and isolated， as Neill observed the revenge “has ceased to be a social man” （Neil， 1997， pp. 251-252）.

If self-preservation and self-love are the interest factors for people to establish the country and society， then the sense of social belonging is the spiritual demand for the establishment of the country and society. The love of the community generated by the sense of social belonging make it possible to be transformed into social dedication， and the recognition of human natural equality is the premise of the sense of social belonging. People not only pay great attention to their own preservation， but also have a subtle feeling of their own value. Therefore， Pufendorf believes that the ultimate and most effective rebuttal of insolence and insults from others is “Look， I am not a dog， but a man as well as yourself” （Pufendorf， 1991， p. 61）. Human nature belongs to all people equally. No one is willing to get along with people who do not regard them as the same kind. It is one of people’s obligations to recognize the equality of the others， treat and value them as man. Everyone is able to hurt others and possible to be hurt by others. In order for others to treat themselves in the way they should， everyone has the obligation to cultivate sociality. At the same time， it must be recognized that there are natural rights every one enjoys. Thus Pufendorf believes that it is a great mistake to show contempt for others by “deeds， words， looks， laughter or slighting gesture”， because it “vigorously excites the hearts of others to violent anger and desire for revenge” （Pufendorf， 1991， p. 63）. Humiliation and contempt will make people feel excluded from the group， and the sense of alienation will replace the sense of social belonging. He will no longer regard himself as a member of the society and will not actively fulfill his obligations. What the group brings is not security and order， but danger and attack. Therefore， only when everyone recognizes the equality of others， actively performs their social obligations， and treats others fairly and friendly can we keep good social order.

References

Berry， R. （1988）. Shakespeare and social class. NJ： Humanities Press.

Burnett， A. P. （1998）. Revenge in Attic and later tragedy. Berkeley： University of California Press.

Campbell， L. B. （1931）. “Theories of revenge in Renaissance England”. Modern Philology， 28， 281-96.

Cavell， S. （2013）. Saying in The Merchant of Venice. In B. Cormack， M. C. Nussbaum， & R. Strier （Eds.）， Shakespeare and the law： A conversation among disciplines and professions （pp. 221-230）. Chicago： The University of Chicago Press.

Dunne， D. （2016）. Shakespeare， revenge tragedy and early modern law. New York： Palgrave Macmillian.

Girard， R. （1988）. Violence and the sacred （P. Gregory， Trans.）. London： Athlone Press.

Harris， J. G. （2004）. Sick economies： Drama， Mercantilism， and disease in Shakespeare’s England. Philadelphia： University of Pennsylvania Press.

Holderness， G. （1987） （Ed.）. Hamlet. Philadelphia： Open University Press.

Honigmann， E. A. J. （1976）. Shakespeare： Seven tragedies： The dramatist’s manipulation of response. London： Macmillan.

Jorgensen， P. A. （1971） Our naked frailties： Sensational art and meaning in “Macbeth.” Berkeley： University of California Press.

Keyishian， H. （1995）. The shapes of revenge： Victimization， vengeance， and vindictiveness in Shakespeare. NJ： Humanities Press.

Muir， E. （1993）. Mad blood stirring： Vendetta and factions in friuli during the renaissance. Baltimore： Johns Hopkins University Press.

Neill， M. （1997）. Issues of death： Mortality and identity in English renaissance tragedy. Oxford： Clarendon Press.

Posner， R. A. （2009）. Law and literature. Massachusetts： Harvard University Press.

Prosser， E. （1971）. Hamlet and revenge. Stanford： Stanford University Press.

Pufendorf， S. （1991）. On the duty of man and citizen according to natural law （M. Silverthorne， Trans.）. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

Schlegel， A. W. （1879）. Lectures on dramatic art and literature. London： George Bell and Sons.

Semenza， & Colón， G. M. （2006）. The Spanish tragedy and revenge. In G. A. Sullivan Jr， P. Cheney， & A. Hadfield （Eds.）， Early modern English drama： A critical companion. Oxford： Oxford University Press.

Watson， R. N. （2002）. Tragedies of revenge and ambition. In C. McEachern （Ed.）， The Cambridge companion to Shakespearean tragedy. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

Wilson， J. D. （2009）. （Ed.）. Othello. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

Wilson， J. D. （Ed.）. （1948）. Titus andronicus. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

Woodbridge， L. （2010）. English renvenge drama. New York： Cambridge University Press.