Francis Bacon has examined the idea of retaliation, the nature of revenge, and the consequences of revenge on the human psyche in his essay, “Of Revenge.”
Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626), was an English philosopher, statesman, author, and pioneering figure of the Scientific Revolution.
Of Revenge | Summary
Francis Bacon begins by highlighting the innate desire for retaliation in humans. In other terms, it refers to getting some sort of gratification from punishing those that offend us, do us wrong, or make us feel bad. This reveals our primal animal nature and must be restricted and discouraged through legal and regulatory means. The first offense—committing a crime or inflicting harm—should be dealt with lawfully. He maintains that the goal of every human being should be to discuss their existence and reason for existing. As a result, choosing to forgive and be kind rather than seeking retribution is better. He contends that while seeking revenge could result in fairness and momentary gratification, doing the right thing and giving people a second chance promotes greater human accomplishment and harmony. Forgiveness requires character strength, wisdom, and bravery which are uncommon in people of average intelligence. He defends the position of a royal regent, who has the authority to pardon but is exempt from the suffering, emotional investment, and loss that regular people must endure. As a result, the regent is more likely to be able to forgive than the average individual. Bacon emphasizes the superiority of adopting the high moral ground and demonstrating compassion and forgiveness by quoting King Solomon from the Bible. He claims that it is impossible to go forward and claim a brighter future if a person harbors retaliatory feelings and becomes trapped in the vicious cycle of past harm and suffering. The past cannot be erased or altered. But with deliberate work and generous hearts, the present and the future can be improved. A sensible man always considers the chances that lie ahead rather than the mistakes made in the past. He learns from his failures and uses those lessons to improve himself in the future. There are countless reasons why a person makes a mistake or commits a crime, including personal gain, bad guidance, unrestrained desire, etc. According to Bacon, one should feel sorry for the individual who is a prisoner to his own needs, drives, and instincts rather than being concerned about someone else who wants to seize some benefit and pleasure for himself.
These people should be spared since they are imprisoned by their instincts and live only to inflict harm, much like a thorny bush. For them, the humiliation and punishment in this cage are plenty. We can see that Bacon has agreed to some terms with those seeking retribution. Retribution can be permitted, according to him, when a crime is committed that cannot be rectified by the judicial system and the offender is likely to go unpunished. However, the act of revenge’ itself must be extra-legal for judicial systems to hold the perpetrator accountable. Additionally, he asserts that it is occasionally permissible to inform the initial offender that he is being singled out and dishonored by his victim.
This can act as a comfort to the victim and a deterrent to the offender so they won’t do the same crime again. It might even cause him to feel some remorse. On the other hand, if the offender is genuinely nasty and heartless, he might never acknowledge his guilt and continue to exist in the mindless world of his crime. Bacon continues by saying that it is even more reprehensible and inexcusable when one is injured by a friend as an illustration of justified retaliation. He uses the Duke of Florence as an example, who forgave his adversaries but never pardoned his evil-doing companions. He does, however, use Prophet Job from the Bible as an example, who counseled accepting the good with the bad and the beautiful with the ugly. So it is important to value each friend. Bacon condemns those seeking retribution who never allow their wounds to mend because they are constantly burning with pain and longing for causing harm. They keep their scars new by grinding on an axe. Otherwise, time will heal all wounds. On the hypocrisy of retaliation itself, Bacon comments. In other cases, the demise of tyrants like Caesar and others is celebrated. These overt acts of vengeance can serve as deterrents against oppression and wickedness, and occasionally they are even praised.
Of Revenge | Analysis
Bacon acknowledges that “public revenge for the most part is fortunate” and makes an incredibly compelling argument against taking private revenge in his article on the subject. He refers to vengeance as “wild justice”. He uses this comparison to highlight revenge’s animalistic essence. The ability to exact revenge is a trait of animals, not of people, who have the freedom to pardon and care for others. Essays by Bacon are known for being succinct but very understandable. He depicts both human and animal existence in its entirety, just as he would with a single act of wild justice.
Furthermore, according to Bacon, while the first wrong is governed by the law, avenging it is not. Revenge is a legal misunderstanding. When the author notes that the wise man is the one who ignores the wrongs of others done to him since he has much more to do in the present and future rather than addressing his previous concerns, the author is appealing to one’s wisdom of ethical supremacy in this essay. One should move on because past wrongs are irrevocable and cannot be undone. Bacon provides a reasoned justification for why someone might seek to harm others. As one does not make a mistake for the wrong reason. According to him, hurting people might be done for financial gain, for pleasure like a sadist, or to gain respect. One should not exact revenge on others if these were the causes of their wrongdoing.
Bacon contends that through exacting retribution, one seizes control of the law. If one seeks retribution, the law is meaningless. Such retaliation, however, is tolerable as there is no legal way to stop it. Bacon cautions that one should be sure there is no law to punish them at that point. Additionally, before exacting revenge, one should warn the target of the attack. They might feel bad, which is more valuable than hurting them. We can overlook wrongdoing committed by opponents because we anticipate them to do so, but what about wrongs committed against us by a close friend? Are such wrongs also pardonable? By citing Cosmus, the Duke of Florence, who said that we are required to forgive enemies but never friends, Bacon appears to shift his mind about not seeking retribution. But right after that, he references Job and claims that :
“if we are content and happy to receive all the good that God has to offer, then why are we not content and happy to receive all the evil”? Such people ought to be seen as wicked by God and not exact revenge.
Although Bacon strongly opposes taking private revenge, he contends that taking public revenge is usually a good thing since it sets a good example for everyone. Private vengeance, however, is regrettable. The victim of revenge leads a witch’s life and his wound never mends. The metaphorical comparison “Revenge is a kind of wild justice” emphasizes the unbridled and destructive character of retribution. The phrase “in passing it over, he is superior” poses a paradox because it implies that by forgoing retaliation, one acquires superiority.
The reference to Solomon’s proverb, “It is a man’s glory to ignore an offense,” lends credibility to the speaker’s viewpoint.
“Why should I be angry with a man for loving himself better than me?” The idea of becoming enraged at someone for putting their interests first is contested rhetorically. The analogy between vengeful people acting covertly and “the arrow that flies from the dark” paints a clear picture of their stealthy and cowardly nature. The proverb that Cosimo de’ Medici is credited with coining, “Forgive enemies, but not friends,” is both smart and thought-provoking. The allusion to Job raises doubts about one’s capacity to tolerate both good and evil, extending the idea to relationships and forgiving others. The speaker’s argument is emphasized by the use of the word “Shall we” repeatedly in the sentence about removing good and evil from God’s control.
Bacon contends that revenge is a form of wild justice. Wild justice is a representation of animalistic conduct. Animals don’t have any laws or rules to keep order in their society. They also don’t have any rules and regulations. They, therefore, tend to seek retribution. In contrast, human civilization has laws that control how people behave. They shouldn’t have an animalistic desire to exact revenge on others. By doing this, they are putting the law in their hands, which is pointless in these circumstances. Private vengeance is regrettable and pointless since it puts the law in the hands of the person seeking it. To exact revenge, one needs to seek legal advice. Since there is no legal way to right such wrongs, retaliation is acceptable and fortunate. It is regrettable if there is legislation. The most unhappy individual is the one who is constantly looking for an opportunity to exact retribution since his wounds never heal and he leads a witch’s life. Retaliation is a topic where Bacon makes a strong moral and ethical case. He asserts that the wise man is the one who extends forgiveness to others and puts more emphasis on the present and future than the past. Living in the past is pointless since the wrongs of the past are over and cannot be undone. Simply forget, forgive, and proceed.
According to Bacon, most instances of public acts of retaliation are fortunate because they serve as role models for others. Bad leaders should be dealt with publicly and harshly so that others might take note and refrain from similar behavior. Vengeful people are portrayed as being extremely evil and doomed when they are compared to witches. The historical instances of public revenge, such as the plots to kill Caesar and Henry the Third of France, offer corroborating proof of its efficacy.
Overall, Francis Bacon’s essay is more convincing and rhetorical due to the use of strong, dominant language and persuasive literary devices, which draws the reader in and effectively conveys the author’s position on retribution.