During the height of the English Renaissance, the revenge tragedies The Spanish Tragedy and Hamlet were introduced to the English literary canon. In this essay, I will focus on the similarities that the protagonists, Hamlet and Hieronimo, share as prototypical avengers. Although Hamlet’s contribution to the genre should not be discredited, I will argue that the similar characterisation of Hieronimo in The Spanish Tragedy, portrays the same depth and entitlement to the acclaim as a prototypical avenger as Hamlet. Even though their portrayal may differ in tone, their shared commonality attributes equal complexity to both characters. I will compare and analyse the two plays in order to demonstrate that both characters should be considered prototypical avengers. The essay concludes that a reluctance to revenge and a tendency to contemplate the morality of the action is prominently shared by both prototypical avengers. Although critics generally infer Hieronimo is a less complex character in comparison with Hamlet, this essay will show how both avengers deserve equal credit. This essay illustrates this statement by juxtaposing their equal need to find justification before taking revenge, use of suicide to emphasise their moral dilemma, and comment on the tragic consequences of revenge.

La vengeance par définition est l’acte d’une victime qui, suite à un outrage, décide de se faire justice par ses propres moyens. Ce grand topos narratif ne manque pas de représentation dans la littérature. Au contraire, il est le moteur narratif de nombreuses fictions de l’Antiquité, où les dieux vengent l’hybris de l’homme, en passant par le roman noir, où l’archétype du détective tente d’apporter sa propre justice dans un monde sombre, et ce jusqu’à nos récits contemporains. Beaucoup de penseurs, philosophes et théoriciens de tous les temps ont tenté de dresser les piliers qui fondent cette vengeance, afin d’appréhender sa possibilité ou son impossibilité d’être « Juste ». Ce débat se porte jusqu’en littérature où les récits vindicatifs vont dans les deux sens. D’un côté, certains récits idéalisent la vengeance en présentant le parcours d’un protagoniste qui réussit, par sa quête vindicative, à atteindre une Justice transcendante, et cathartique pour le lecteur. D’un autre côté, des récits vindicatifs présentent les limites de la justice personnelle, par un protagoniste inapte à apporter une quelconque rédemption justicière, et qui confronte le lecteur à un récit insoluble et problématique. Dans cette étude littéraire, ces deux familles de récits vindicatifs seront analysées, afin de définir leurs modalités narratives et de comprendre le sens éthique et affectif que chaque récit porte en rapport à la vengeance. Pour ce faire, ce projet de recherche travaillera autour de deux œuvres vindicatives canoniques (Le Compte de Monte-Cristo et J’irai cracher sur vos tombes), autant que certains films contemporains (Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds, Django Unchained, Memento, etc.) qui précisent la contemporanéité de cette réflexion. À travers divers penseurs (y compris Aristote, René Girard, Umberto Eco et Michel Erman), je situerai le débat éthique et je circonscrirai les aspects de la catharsis autour de la vengeance. Enfin, ce projet de recherche porte sur deux aspects enchevêtrés : les questions éthiques qui émergent de l’acte de vengeance et le rôle de la représentation littéraire (ou médiatique) dans la mise en scène de la pensée de la vengeance. Cette réflexion double constitue l’originalité de ce projet. / Vengeance, by definition, is the act undertaken by a victim who, following an offense, decides to get justice by his own means. This narrative topos is not without representation in literature. Quite the opposite, it lays at the heart of numerous fictions from the antiquity, in which the gods avenge man’s hybris, through roman noir, where the archetype of the detective attempts to bring his own justice in a somber world, up to our contemporary fictions. Thinkers, philosophers and theoreticians from all eras have attempted to identify the pillars which support vengeance in order to apprehend its (im)possibility to be “Just”. Such debate similarly reaches the literary world, where narratives go both ways. On the one hand, certain narratives idealize vengeance by representing the journey of a protagonist who succeeds, continuing through the vindictive quest, in achieving a transcendental Justice which proves cathartic for the reader. On the other hand, some narratives highlight the limits of personal justice by staging a protagonist unable to bring about vigilante redemption, thereby confronting the reader with an insoluble and problematic story. This literary study will examine these two categories of the vindictive story to define their respective narrative modalities and to discern the ethical and affective meaning each category attributes to vengeance. In doing so, this research project will consider canonical works (Le Compte de Monte-Cristo et J’irai cracher sur vos tombes) as well as films (Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds, Django Unchained, Memento, etc.), which provide contemporaneity to this reflection. Building on works by Aristotle, René Girard, Umberto Eco and Michel Erman, I will situate the ethical debate and circumscribe the relations between catharsis and vengeance. Ultimately, this research project addresses two intermeshed concerns: the ethical questions which emerge from revenge and the role of literary (or mediatic) representation in displaying vengeance thought. This dual reflection constitutes the originality of this project.

I Spit on Your Grave is a low budget rape/revenge-movie released in 1978, directed by Meir Zarchi. The plot follows Jennifer Hills, who is brutally raped by a group of men and then left for dead. She survives and then proceeds to seek revenge on her rapists. In 2010, a new adaptation was released, with a similar plot and characters, directed by Steven R. Monroe. This study sets out to examine the differences between the portrayal of protagonist Jennifer Hills in the 1978 original and the 2010 version of I Spit on Your Grave. Using qualitative content analysis and a structuralist and semiotic perspective, the study also aims to explore what these differences can tell us about the societies responsible for producing the movies. The theories examined in order to properly answer these questions are mainly feminist film theory derived from acknowledged film theorists and scholars such as Carol Clover and Laura Mulvey. The material analyzed consists of scenes where Jennifer is present, and the results show that Jennifer in 1978 is portrayed in a more feminine manner, heavily influenced by the femme fatale from the 1940’s film noir. She uses her beauty and body to seduce the men in order to kill them, whereas Jennifer in 2010 is portrayed as a woman whose characteristics after the rape transforms into those of a man. In order to get revenge on her rapists, she has to behave more like them. Rather than a beauty, Jennifer is portrayed as a monster. Zarchis' film from the 1970’s seems to reward women behaving and looking like women, while Monroes film from 2010 encourages women to act like men, in order to survive.