君主专制与政治抵制:早期现代英国法律语境中的《复仇者悲剧》

英国自都铎王朝后期至斯图亚特早期，立宪君主论或混合君主论者抵制君权神授论，坚持家庭是一个自治的、涉及臣民私人权益的小政府，受到自然法、古代宪法或神圣法的保护。《复仇者悲剧》中公爵王室言行映射詹姆士一世在《皇家礼物》中所宣扬的君权神授论，温迪斯兄弟俩及追随者的复仇隐含当时的政治抵制学说，公爵王室与温迪斯兄弟俩的对立象征君权神授论与普通法理论的对峙。温迪斯兄弟俩却以威胁新君为由被处死，司法斗争简约为复仇冲动，维权英雄陡变为暴徒，暴君化身为明君，这暴露出君权神授论的悖论性和剧作家含混的复仇伦理。

Absolute Monarchy and Political Resistance: The Revenger s Tragedy in the Legal Politics of Early Modern England

From the late Tudor dynasty to early Stuart dynasty, either constitutional monarchy or mixed constitution resists divine monarchy, contending that the household is an autonomous and private mini-government, which is protected by natural law, ancient constitution or divine law. The paper holds that The Duke Family’s actions in The Revenger ’s Tragedy suggest the theory of divine right of kings, propagated by James I in Bislikon Doron, that Vendice brothers and their followers’ revenge indicates contemporary various political resistance theories, and that the opposition between the Duke family and Vendice brothers symbolizes the antithesis between the theory of divine rights and the common law. In the denouement, Vendice brothers were executed for threatening new Duke, and a fight for judicial justice came down to a revenge caused by emotional impulse and corrupt nature without motivation and common law yields to the theory of divine rights. This exposes the paradox of theory of divine rights and the dramatist’s ambivalent revenge ethics