George Chapman's Stoic Christian Revenger

7/27/2019 George Chapman's Stoic Christian Revenger

1/12

George Chapman's Stoic-Christian RevengerAuthor(s): Ronald BroudeSource: Studies in Philology, Vol. 70, No. 1 (Jan., 1973), pp. 51-61Published by: University of North Carolina PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4173791Accessed: 14/07/2009 07:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of North Carolina Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Studies in Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4173791?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4173791?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/12

George Chapman'sStoic-ChristianRevengerBy RONALD BROUDE

RITICSwho haverecognizedn GeorgeChapman'sRevengeof BussyD'Ambois he highlypersonal ynthesisof RomanStoicism and RenaissanceChristianitywhich preoccupiedChapman or much of his careerhave neverthelesshad difficultyin reconciling hisphilosophywith the revengewhich,demanded yBussy's Christian ghostandcarried utby his Senecal brother,Clermont,s evidently o centrala part of the play. Revenge, t hasbeenassumed,s consonantwithneitherStoicnorChristianeaching,and the idea of a Stoic-Christianevengerhas thereforeseemednothingessthana contradictionn terms.Actingon thisassumption,some criticshavequestioned he integrityof the play'sdesign, con-demning he vengeance owardswhich the wholeactionbuilds as acrudeexpedientwhich bringsthe tragedy o an arbitraryloseandassailing he protagonists a character othundramaticnd incon-sistent.'In part,confusionabout the meaningof Clermont'sevengede-rives romthe tendency o readChapman'seventeenth enturyplayin twentieth century terms, to suppose that Stoicism meant to

' On Stoic and Christianelements in Chapman'sthought, see R. H. Perkinson,Nature and the Tragic Hero in Chapman's Bussy Plays, MLQ, III (1942),263-85; J. Wieler, George Chapman (New York, 1949); and Ennis Rees, TheTragedies of George Chapman (Cambridge, Mass., 1954). Among critics whoexpress reservationsabout Chapman's fusion of philosophy and drama in TheRevenge are Janet Spens, Chapman's Ethical Thought, Essays and Studies byMembersof the EnglishAssociation,XI (1925), 150; Una Ellis-Fermor,heJacobeanDrama, 4th ed, (Cambridge,I957), pp. 69-70; RobertOrnstein,The MoralVision of Jacobean Tragedy (Madison, Wisc., I960), pp. 70, 74-5; and IvringRibner, Jacobean Tragedy (New York, 1962), p. 22.5'


3/12

52 GeorgeChapman'sStoic-ChristianRevengerChapmanwhat it means to us and to take it for grantedthatChristianityn Chapman'saywasessentiallywhat it is in ours. Infact,neitherof theseassumptionss justified.Renaissanceumanistsfoundin the writingsof Seneca,Epictetus,and MarcusAureliusaviableandsatisfying hilosophyf which hemodernword stoicism,with its connotations f fatalism, epressionf emotion,and lifelessindifferenceopleasure ndpain,affords ut a partial ndmisleadingidea. Similarly, he Protestantismf RenaissanceEnglishmenwas,in many ways, significantlydifferentfrom-and less christianthan-thatof theirtwentieth enturydescendants.Contraryo whatwe mightexpect,vengeance,n its Renaissanceenseof retribution,was notunconditionallyejected yeither he Stoicism f theEmpireortheChristianityf Jacobean ngland, lthough,obesure, tsplacein each of these systemswas hedged aboutwith qualifications. tmay thusbe, then,thattomany n theaudience orwhichChapmanwaswriting,Clermont'sevengewouldhaveseemedneitherunStoicnorunChristian.

Heir to a philosophicalraditionbornin AthensthreehundredyearsbeforeChrist,RomanStoicisms farfromthe monolithic odyof thought t is sometimesmaginedo be. RomanStoic pronounce-ments on vengeance, complex and often mutually contradictory, e-flect in their varietythree centuriesof Stoic thinking on the subject.In general,Roman Stoicismregardsvice as a productof misplacedvalues and poor judgement rather than as a distinct quality presentin the universeor identifiable n a viciousman.2 Potentialfor virtuousaction is rarelylacking in criminals, who may generallybe reformedif theycan be brought o see the errorof theirways. Punishmentis viewed as a means of effecting this reformation,of providingex-amples to deter potential malefactors,and, in extreme cases, of en-suring the security of society by removing a particularlydangerousreprobatefrom its midst.3 It is largely because punishment served

2 On Roman Stoic views concerningvice, see R. D. Hicks, Stoic and Epicurean(New York, I9iO), pp. 145 ff. and V. A. Amold, Roman Stoicism (Cambridge,I91I), pp. 330-56.' Seneca, De Clementia,XXII.i. All quotationsfrom Seneca are from the MoralEssays I, Loeb ClassicalLib., tr. John Basore(London and New York, 1928).


4/12

RonaldBroude 53these mportantunctions hat, as R. D. Hickshasnoted, the sameStoics who demandedpatienceunderwrongrefusedto allow com-passionand pardon,and stoutlyopposedany interferencewith thecourseof justiceby remission f penalty. No treatment eemsharsh, writes Seneca, if its result is salutary.For a Stoic, the appropriateresponse to wrong depends on boththe nature of the wrong and the way in which the wrong is per-ceived. A personal njury-e. g., a blow or an insult-is to be enduredwith patience and equanimity. Such an injury is understood toresult from an error in judgement on the part of the aggressor,wNllois thereforemore deserving of pity than anger.6 The wise man willnot even regard such aggression as an injury, much less offer toreplyto it. As MarcusAurelius,giving memorable orm to a common-place, remarks, The best way of avenging thyself is not to do like-wise.On the other hand, felonies such as theft or murder, if perceivedas threatsto civil order or as acts of impiety, may, accordingto oneline of argument, lay upon the public-spiritedand pious citizenthe duty to revengethem. Thus, in De Ira,which containsone of themost searchingdiscussionsof vengeance among extant Stoic writings,Seneca accepts the necessity of the Stoic's meting out punishment,so long as he is motivatedby a sense of duty and a desire for justice:

My father . . . is slain-I will avenge him, not because I grieve,but because it is my duty.Emotions, warns Seneca, ought not to enter into the execution of

vengeance, since they hinder the operation of reason,and thus openthe way to possible injustice. Anger is especially dangerous, sinceit demandsimmediateaction, while reasonrequirestime to considerand reconsider:' Op. Cit., P. 146.De Ira,I. vi. 2.'Epictetus, Discourses, I. xviii; and Manual, 42. Citations are to the LoebClassicalLib., ed. W. A. Oldfather (London and New York, 1928).7VI. 6, Loeb ClassicalLib., ed. C. R. Haines (London and New York, I9I6).Note also, however, Seneca, De ConstantiaSapientis, xii.3: 'Why, if the wiseman cannot receive either injury or insult, does he punish those who have offeredthem?' For he is not avenging himself, but punishing them.' I. xii. 2. The Latin exsequargives the sense of pursuingwith intent to punish.


5/12

54 GeorgeChapman'sStoic-ChristianRevengerReason grants a hearing to both sides, then seeks to postpone action, even itsown, in order that it may gain time to sift out the truth;but anger is precipitate.Reason wishes the decision it gives to be just; anger wishes the decision which ithas given to seem the just decision.9

Finally,punishment, f calledfor, must be inflicted n a mannerconsistentwithreasonand justice.Excessive rueltys to be avoided,as is anysenseof personal atisfactionn causingpainto an enemy.'0Speaking f suchdutiesasvengeance, eneca autions hatoneshoulddo all that s worthy f a goodman and nothing hat s unworthyof a man. -The viewsdiscussed bovewereto be found n works eadilyavail-able toRenaissancenglishmen.Thosewho had not readextensivelyin Cicero,Seneca,Plutarch, pictetus,rMarcusAureliuswerenever-theless ikelyto encounter pigrammaticormulations f theirideasin the florilegia, the popular quotation books in which the Stoicthinkerswereamong he mostfrequently itedclassical uthors.'2An even wider rangeof views on vengeance han characterizesStoicthoughts to be found in the writingsof Renaissance nglish-men, for whomrevengewas a subjectof lively controversy. 3heambivalencend inconsistencywhich markRenaissanceEnglish at-titudes owardsevenge s in largepartattributableo the changes nreligious,political, egal, and socialinstitutionswhich accompaniedEngland's mergenceromthe MiddleAges. The Tudor campaignagainst private evenge havingprovedonlymoderatelyuccessful,the firstStuart's fforts o suppress uelling,bloodfeuds, and othertime-honoredormsof extra-legaletaliationmetwithstoutresistance

9 Ibid., I. xviii. I.10 Ibid., I. vi; and De Clementia,passim.De Ira, I. xii. 2.12 On the availabilityof Stoic works in the Renaissance,see Wieler, pp. 172-5.On the relative popularityof Classical authors in florilegia, see BertramCohon,Seneca'sTragediesin Florilegia and ElizabethanDrama (unpublished dissertation,ColumbiaUniversity, x960), II5-69.13 On Renaissanceattitudestowardsrevenge, see L. B. Campbell, Theories ofRevenge in RenaissanceEngland, MP, XXVIII (193I), 28I-96; Fredson Bowers,Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy (Princeton, I940), pp. 3-40; Mary Mroz, DivineVengeance (Washington, D. C., 1941), passim;and Eleanor Prosser,Hamlet andRevenge (Stanford, I967), pp. 3-73.


6/12

RonaldBroude 55on the partof manyEnglishmen particularlyhoseof Chapman'sgeneration) or whom vengeancewas not Mr. ProsecutorBacon'swildjustice but rather sacredduty mpliedbythelawsof nature,man, and God.Contraryo theview oftenencounteredmongElizabethancholarstoday,Renaissance rotestantismid not repudiatehe eye for aneye ethic of the Pentateuch. Murderwas regarded s an offenseagainstGod, a violationof Divine Law,the penaltyfor which wasclearly et forth n Genesis9:6: Whososheddethman'sblood,byman shall his blood be shed. This verse,by no meansabrogatedby Christ's dmonitiono resistnot evil, hadbeencitedby Lutheras the authorityuponwhich all civil govemment,pastand present,rested. 4OrthodoxTudor-Stuartheorysaw the implementationf DivineLaw as God'sprerogative,nd hence,as Lily B. Campbellhas ob-served,Renaissance nglishmenwere ikelytoregard llvengeance sdivinevengeance,visitedby God eitherdirectlyor throughhumanagents. 5Ordinarily,heseagentswerethe kingand the magistrates,whoclaimed o be God'sdeputieson earth, ordained, s Paul hadexplained in Romans I3, for the enforcement of His laws.Failureon the partof king andmagistratesopunishmalefactorswasa seriousmatter,for unrevengedcrimethreatenednot only civil orderbut, ultimately,the harmonyof the entireuniverse. When, therefore,througheitherhis own clevernessor the negligence of the authorities,a criminal managed to elude punishment, God was expected to in-tervene to ensure that justice was done. In such cases, He oftenselected a private man to be the instrument of His vengeance.Sometimesthis man might himself be a criminal;sometimes in theprocessof taking revenge he might become one. On the question ofwhen, if ever, a private individual might take vengeance withouthimself assumingguilt, opinion in RenaissanceEngland was sharply

14 Lectureson Genesis in the AmericanEditionof Luther'sWorks, ed. Pelikanand Poellot (St. Louis, Mo., I960), pp. 139-42, and Part I of TemporalAuthority,Works, XLV, ed. Schindel and Brandt(Philadelphia, I962), passim, but especiallyp. i02. These statementsand the tradition they representare not mentioned bythe scholars cited in note 13 above.15Op. cit., pp. 282 ff.


7/12

56 GeorgeChapman'sStoic-ChristianRevengerdivided.16A goodcase could be madefor the pnvilegeof the re-vengerof blood (the next of kin of a murder ictim),whosedutywas definedbythe Bible(Numbers35: 9), and who couldthereforebe considered s much ordained by God as any commissionedmagistrate.17The duellistmight likewiseclaim to be a guilt-freeagentof divineretribution,inceduelswereoftenregardeds direct-ed by the secretwill of God, heiroutcomesbeing the executionsof His hidden udgements. 8It was understoodhat Providence, peratingn ways often in-comprehensibleomortals,mploying ortents, pparentoincidences,and variousminormiracles,arrangedhe pattem of eventswhichculminated n the criminal'sdownfall.19Althoughrarelyreferredto explicitly ave n worksof anovertlydidacticnature, heoperationof Providences generally ssumedn Renaissance nglish reatmentsof crimeandpunishment;s recentscholarshipas shown,the con-cept of retribution rovidentiallyffected s central o the meaningof suchrevengeplaysas The SpanishTragedyand Hamlet.2016 See, for example, ChristopherGoodman, How SuperiorPowers Ought to beObeyed ([Geneva?], 1558), p. I9o: It is not only praiseworthyn all, but re-quiredof all . . . [to see the judgementsof God's laws] executed upon all mannerof persons. . . . And if that be not done by the aid and consent of the Superiors,it is lawful for the people, yea, it is their duty to do it themselves . . . havingthe word of God for their warrant . . . and by the same charged to cast forthall evil from them. On circumstanceswhich might justify private men's takingrevenge, see Bowers,p. 36; on Chapman'sview that God may select extraordinarymen to act as agents of divine vengeance, see Rees, p. 6, who cites Chapman'sHymnus in Noctem.17 The privilegeof the revengerof blood was strengthenedby the provisions nElizabethan aw favoringinitiationof prosecutionby a murdervictim'snext of kin(see FrancisBacon, The Use of the Law, Works, ed. Spedding et al [London,I859], VII, 453), and by the belief, discussedby Bowers (p. 39), that the son oca murderedman could not succeed to his inheritancebefore he had avenged hisfather.8 Vincentio Saviolo, Vincentio Saviolo His Practice (London, 1595), Sig. C2v.On Providence and divine vengeance, see H. H. Adams, English Domestic orHomiletic Tragedy (New York, 1943), p. i8.

20 On The Spanish Tragedy,see Ernst de Chickera, Divine Justice and PrivateRevenge in The Spanish Tragedy, MLR, LVII (I962), 228-32; on TitusAndronicus,see my article, Goth and Roman in Titus Andronicus, ShakespeareStudies, VI (1970), 32; on Hamlet, see S. F. Johnson, The RegenerationofHamlet, SQ, III (1952), I87-207; on The Atheist'sTragedy, see Irving Ribner'sIntroductionto the Revels Plays edition (Cambridge, I964).


8/12

RonaldBroude 57Chapman'sortrayalf Clermont raws n bothStoicandChristiandoctrine. In accordancewith Stoic teaching,Clermont's evenge,notably reefromvindictivenessndpersonalmalice,has as its endsjusticeand the reformation f the criminal.When, realizing hatretributions at hand, Montsurry hanges from a base cowardtoa worthyadversary, lermont s preparedo be reconciledwith him.When Montsurry hows himself magnanimousnough to forgiveClermonthis death, Clermontacknowledges he completeness fMontsurry'sregeneration,asserting that his noble end makes fullamends and more for his earlierfaults.Insofar as possible, Clermont seeks to pursue vengeance guidedby reasonand unswayed by passion. He explicitly rejects the optionof ignoble revenge as inconsistentwith reason( Shall we equal be /With villains? Is that yourreason? [III, ii, 98-9] 21), and he choosessingle combat as the most honorable way of discharginghis obliga-tion to his brother. He expressesregret for his single impulsive act,his vow to avenge Bussy, made in the heat of the moment, withoutsufficient time for deliberation (11. IO9-I2), and he refuses to bemoved to prematureactionby anger ( Nor can we call it virtue thatproceeds/ From vicious fury [11.I08-9]). Intent on pursuing theright course, Clermont considersargumentsfor and against Bussy'srevenge: he turns over the possibilitythat he has only imagined theappearance of his brother's ghost (11. i iO-i i), and he wonderswhether Bussy's death may not be more a private than a publicmatter(11. I I5-6). Perhapshis chief reason for hesitating is his fear,never stated explicitly but implied by his paraphrasesof Epictetus(III, iv, 66-75; IV,i, I37-57; IV, v, 4-13), that in attemptingto avengeBussy he may overreachhimself, and so do more harm than good.The mischief of which a sincerebut impulsiveman is capablewhen,trusting to his own virtiu,he exceeds the limits of his power is sug-gested by the Guise. The notoriousMassacreaffordsa grim exampleof the sort of excesses to which zealots of the Guise's stamp can beprone. Dangerousto others,such men may proveequally so to them-selves: it is, after all, the Guise's generous but ill-advisedinterces-

21Quotationsfrom The Revenge are from T. M. Parrott'sedition of Chapman'sTragedies (London, i9i0).


9/12

58 GeorgeChapman'sStoic-ChristianRevengersion on behalfof theunjustlyaccusedClermonthatbrings hepusil-lanimousHenry o seethe Guise'sdeathas the mostexpedientmeansof protecting is own crown. The StoicalClermonts by principleopposed o such ill-consideredonduct: his atttude is summedupin the adviceofferedto the Guise as the latter tries to charthispolitical uture:

Make not your forwardspirit in virtue'srightA property or vice, by thrustingonFurther than all your powerscan fetch you off.It is enough, your will is infiniteTo all things virtuousand religious,Which, within limits kept, may without dangerLet virtue some good from your graces gather. (V, i, 70-6)

Essentially practicalodeof behavior,oncernedmorewithproperconductthan final causes,Clermont's toicismdoes not provideamoralframework f cosmicdimensionsn termsof which Bussy'sdeathmaybe defined.Such a moral rameworks invokedby Bussy'sghost,who speaks orthe Justicewhose almighty wordMeasures the bloody acts of impious menWith equal penance, who in th' act itselfIncludes th' infliction, which like chained shotBatter together still; though as the thunderSeems, by men's duller hearing than their sight,To break a great time after lightning forth,Yet both at one time tear the labouringcloud,So men think penance of their ills is slow,

Though th' ill and penance still together go. (V, i, 5-I4)The justicedescribed y Bussyand presentedas the proportionuponwhichthe worldstands s not, as hasbeen suggested, 2ncon-sistentwith tenetsacceptedby Renaissance rotestantism.Workingfromthe premise hateverytransgressionf law mustbe answeredwith appropriateunishment,Bussyasserts he existenceof a forcewhich,acting n waysthatsometimeseemslow to men, neverthe-lessensures hat no crimefails to be followedby retribution.It is thenegligence f France'sKingin upholdinghisjustice hat22 See, for example, Bowers, p. 146; and Milar MacLure, George Chapman(Toronto, 966), p. 131.


10/12

RonaldBroude 59provides he context for the action of The Revenge. Mistakenlyviewing he exercise fpowerasmoreworthwhilehanvirtuousiving,Henryhasbecomea tyrantand, more fearfulof the goodthan ofthe bad, seeks to destroy he virtuewhich his weakness ees as athreat o his rule. Ambitious ourtiers,orsakingChristian bsolutesfor pragmaticelativism, umortheir king, pawningtheir integrityfor what they cynicallycall the public good. Thus Maillardcanargue hat there s no sin in forswearingimself or the King (IV, i,45-50), while Baligny,n a profaneparody f the idea of providentialnecessity,can claimthat, just as each man, being a partof God'suniverse,must uncomplaininglyubmitto whateversufferingGodmay mposeon himfor the goodof the whole,so eachsubject,beinga partof the commonweal,mustacceptwithoutmurmurany wrongthe King maydo him for the goodof theroyalestate(II, i, 34-56).23Symbolic f thisreadinessopervertGod'saws n theinterests f courtintrigue s Bussy's laying,defined,at least for the purposesof thisplay,as murthermadeparallelwithlaw, a political xpedienthypo-criticallypassedoff as punishmentor adultery.24Next of kin to Bussy,and one of the few spiritsuntouchedbythecorruptionf theFrench ourt,Clermonteemsa likelycandidateto redeem helawbetrayed y Henry. Bussy's host's oreknowledgeof Clermont'sart n his revenge V, iii,46-55) andClermont'swnawarenessf beingthe man in fate (V, v, io6) suggest hatCler-monthas beenselected o be the instrument f supernaturalowers.However,beforehe can act, Clermontmustbe made to re-examinehis Stoicdependence n reasonand to contemplatehe possibility faction n a worldmovedby powerswhosewaysarebeyond he kenof human understanding.Bussy'sghost attempts o force such a

23 For a perceptive analysisof Henry's court, see Omstein, pp. 70 ff.24The objection, first raised by Boas in his Introductionto the BeHes Lettresedition of Bussy and The Revenge (London, I905), p. xli, that Bussy's affairwith Tamyra justified his slaying in Bussy, seems to me not altogether relevant.Chapman reconceived both setting and charactersfor The Revenge-witness thechanges in the Guise and Henry. For the later play, we are, I think, meant toaccept Bussy's death as a political act, to decry Montsurry'spreference for anambush rather than a challenge, and to understand the punishment-for-adulteryargumentas only partiallyappropriate,an example of the sort of whitewashing theGuise foreseeswill follow his assassination.


11/12

6o GeorgeChapman's toic-Christianevengerre-examination,nd arguingfrom the premisethat observation fChristianaw standsuponfaith,above hepowerof reason V, i,23), he challengeshis brotlher's pictetan caution:

Your mind (you say) kept in your flesh'sbounds,Shows that man's will must rul'd be by his power:When (by true doctrine) you are taught to liveRather without the body than within,And ratherto your God still than yourself.To live to God,maintains Bussy, is to imitate him in

perfecting that justiceThat makes the world last, which proportionisOf punishment and wreak for every wrong.Hence, Clermont s urgedto

use the means thou hast to rightThe wrong I suffer'd. VVhatcorrupted awLeavesunperform'd n kings, do thou supply,And be above them all in dignity. (11. 82-99)25Colored by Bussy's fiery spirit and penchant for hyperbole, thesespeechesare not meant to be accepteduncritically. Rather, they pro-vide a useful corrective for Clermont's Stoic reticence, and help tomove him towardsthe revengewhich bringswith it a more completeunderstandingof the justice whose agent he is. Only after he hasdischargedhis obligationto his slain brother s Clermontprepared oaccept Montsurry'sdeath as a just revenge (V, v, I26) and toconsider the possibilitythat the events he has experiencedmay havebeen directedby supernatural orcessimilarto-and possiblyidenticalwith-Christian Providence (11. 129-32).The final scene, in which Clermont is called upon to respondto the deathsof Bussy and the Guise-both great-spiritedmen whoseintegritysets them apartfrom their politic contemporaries,both vic-tims of political intrigue, treacherouslyslain in ambushes-suggeststhe golden mean which reconcilesEpictetus'warnings against over-reachingoneself with the Christianduty to defend God's laws. Thewise and virtuous man is not called upon to reformthe world, butmerely to do his part in upholding the justice which sustains both

2 This speech echoes in both thought and phrasing Chapman's EuthymiaeRaptus, 11.3 73f. (Bartlett'sedition of Chapman'sPoems).


12/12

RonaldBroude 6isocietyand the universe. By avengingBussy, Clermontassertshisallegiance o this justice, and refuses to condone by inaction thecasuistic elativism esponsibleor France's ecay. Clermonts rightlyrepelled,however,at the prospectof avengingthe Guise. Such aproject, nvolving egicide,would constitutean impiouschallenge othe divinely establishedpolitical order. He thereforechooses theStoic alternativeo existence n a worldhe cannotbetter,and endshis life with his own hand.

Chapman's edication o SirThomasHoward,his frequentmoral-izing, andthe general oneof The Revengehave led some critics odiscussClermont s the personificationf Chapman's toic-Christianideals. While thisposition equires ualification-asClermont imselfis aware,he is far fromperfect n thepractice f his philosophy III,iv, I I f; V, i, I56 ff.)-Chapman certainlyhas taken pains to set hisprotagonistpartromotherrevengersf theElizabethan ndJacobeanstage. Hieronimoand Hamletreproachhemselvesor tardiness nacting;Clermontears esthe mayact tooquickly.TitusandAntoniogive vent to their feelings in epic outbursts;Clermontstrives tomaintainhis composure egardless f the trials he faces. Hoffmanand Vindicipursuerevenge o unscrupulouslyhat they sinkto thelevel of the villainsthey punish;Clermontrefusesto set aside hisscruples,and ends by both chastisingand reformingMontsurry.(Clermont'sdherence o Stoic-Christianrincipless emphasized ythepresence f hisimpetuous, morally engeful ister,Charlotte,whoprofesses ontemptor allobstacles-moralrhuman-toherrevenge.)Ironically,riticalconfusionhas resulted rom Clermont'sailure toconform o expectationsrousedby the very revengerswith whomhe wasmeantto contrast.Viewedwithin the contextof Chapman'sChristian toicism, owever,Clermont'sevenges bothphilosophical-ly consistent nddramaticallyffective.

New York, N. Y.

George Chapman's Stoic Christian Revenger

Documents

Transcript of George Chapman's Stoic Christian Revenger