Showing posts with label -Shakespeare / Marlowe / et al.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label -Shakespeare / Marlowe / et al.. Show all posts

Abrams, M. H., and Stephen Greenblatt. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Volume 1. New York: Norton, 2000.

The Early Seventeenth Century, 1603-1660

When Queen Elizabeth died on March 24, 1603, after more than four decades on the throne, her kinsman James VI of Scotland succeeded her as James I of England without the disruptions or attempted coups that had been feared. 1209

But there was also cause for unease, as the nation saw itself exchanging an English Deborah, whom God had favored with a miraculous victory over the Spanish Armada and who had declared herself married to her people, for an aloof Scotsman with a foreign entourage that might displace English place-seekers. 1209

terms suited to his [James’s] patriarchal and absolutist style. 1210

They span the centuries (roughly 1500—1700) that scholars refer to as the Renaissance when they mean to emphasize breaks with medieval culture and the Early Modern Period when they mean to emphasize seeds of the modern world. Nor do authors’ lives and careers neatly conform to the conventional periods. Shakespeare wrote his great tragedies and romances in James I’s reign; Donne wrote his elegies, satires, and some love poems in the last decade of Queen Elizabeth’s. Milton completed Paradise Lost and wrote two other major poems in the 1660s. 1210

The Stuart kings, James I and his son Charles I, were unable to do this, engaging in constant confrontations with their Parliaments / and subject over taxes, religion, unpopular ministers, and parliamentary rights. Elizabeth did not try to define precisely how power is divided in what was usually described as a “mixed” government of Monarch, Lords, and Commons. James, while yet in Scotland, published two arguments for royal absolutism. The True Law of Free Monarchies (1597) and Basilikon Doran (1598). These works, both reissued in 1603, proclaim the divine right of kings as God’s deputies and as fathers of their people and explain that monarchs are “free” in that they are accountable only to God. A series of analogies is seen to structure a patriarchal social order: as God is absolute ruler of the universe, so is the king of his people and the father of his family. 1211

Such sentiments, not surprisingly, gave rise to widespread rumors of homosexual activities at court. The rumors are certainly plausible, thought the surviving evidence of same-sex relationships in Early Modern England is extremely difficult to interpret. Sodomy was a crime punishable by death, but prosecutions were extremely rare. English law simply declined to recognize the possibility of lesbian acts. From Shakespeare’s sonnets to James’s letters, we find avowals of love and desire between men which may sometimes be formal expressions of affection based on classical models, or, alternatively, expressions of passionate physical and spiritual love. 1211

The discovery and thwarting of the “Gunpowder Plot” in 1605, in which Guy Fawkes and a band of Roman Catholic conspirators plotted to blow up the Houses of Parliament and seize control of the government, unified English Protestants in a wave of anti-Catholic sentiment and support for the monarch. James, it seemed, had been preserved by a divine miracle even as Elizabeth had been by the defeat of the Armada. Also, the king’s sponsorship of the so-called King James Bible (the Authorized Version, 1611) was a powerful force for Protestant unity. 1212

From the other side, Puritans, as they were disparagingly called, pressed for more reformation in doctrine, ritual, and especially in church government, so as to bring the English church into closer conformity with the Presbyterian Church organization in Geneva, as established by the Protestants reformer John Calvin. 1212

The appointment in 1633 of William Laud as archbishop of Canterbury, the ecclesiastical head of the English Church, proved to be a watershed event. Throughout the 1630s Laud promoted the rapid growth of a high Anglican faction within the church, conforming its ceremony, ritual, and doctrine more closely to Roman Catholicism. 1213

Donne was especially fond of the macrocosm/microcosm parallel according to which the human being is seen as “a little world” or recapitulation of the world itself; and almost everyone believed in some version of the “chain” of being that links and orders all species hierarchically. 1214

But this system [chain of being], with it’s a priori assumptions and reliance upon ancient authority, was challenged by Francis Bacon’s new emphasis on scientific method, as well as by actual experiments such as William Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood and Galileo’s telescope, which supplied evidence confirming the Copernican astronomy. Galileo dislodged the earth from its former fixed and stable position at the center of the cosmos and, in defiance of all ordinary observation, sent it whirling around the sun; he also found evidence of change and corruption in the heavens and advanced mind-boggling speculations about life on other planets and infinite universes. Donne, like other writers of his age, responded to the new ideas, giving voice to the anxieties they produced in his Anatomy of the World:

And new philosophy calls all in doubt,

The element of fire is quite put out;

The sun is lost, and the earth, and no man’s wit

Can well direct him where to look for it.

1215

Gifted Church of England preachers like Donne . . . called on all the resources of artful rhetoric and elegant style to enthrall their congregations. 1216

The theaters continued to flourish in the Liberties just outside the City, and therefore not under London’s jurisdiction; this was the only sphere in which authors could support themselves by writing. Shakespeare was at the height of his powers: King Lear, Othello, Macbeth, Twelfth Night, The Tempest, and several others were staged during the early years of James’s reign. 1216

Several prominent Elizabethan genres were no longer much in evidence: long allegorical or mythological narratives, sonnet sequences, and pastoral poems. 1216

John Donne, whose imprudent marriage cost him a much desired career in the court bureaucracy but who later became a famous preacher and dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, cast himself in the older mold of gentleman amateur, circulating his poems in manuscript to friends and coterie circles, and largely avoiding print publication (his poems were published posthumously in 1633). In both their style and their content, Donne’s poems were designed to be read by a select few rather than the public at large. His best poems explore the private worlds of love and religion, often developing passionate dialectical arguments that set them in anxious opposition to the public world. 1217

His style is characterized by learned terms and images, speechlike and often unmelodic verses, and strikingly dramatic language that often evokes a scene in progress. It is also characterized by witty play with paradoxes, ironies and the conjunction of opposites, as in the so-called “metaphysical conceit”—a surprising that metaphor that (as Samuel Johnson later observed) links together images from very different ranges of experience. Donne took particular delight in challenging his sophisticated readers by interchanging the vocabularies of sexual and religious love both in his love poems and in his religious poems. Donne has sometimes been regarded as the founder of a “metaphysical school” of poetry, but that classification is not very useful. 1217

The Jacobean era (so-called from King James I) . . . 1218

there is no doubt that the twenty-year revolutionary period left the English economy far more open to the development of capitalist production. It also saw the development of concepts central to bourgeois liberal thought and soon to influence John Locke and the theorists of the American and French revolutions: religious toleration, separation of church and state, social contract, popular sovereignty, representative government, and republicanism. 1221

Puritans were united in passionate opposition to the bishops, associating them with popery, tyranny over conscience, evil counsel to the king, and pompous excesses in lifestyle. Many, including Milton, demanded that they be cast out of the church, “root and branch.” 1221

Milton’s commitment to the revolution was unwavering, early to late, despite his disillusion when it failed to realize his fundamental ideals: religious toleration for all Protestants and the free circulation of ideas without prior censorship. 1229

He was a Puritan, but both his theological heterodoxies and his poetic vision mark him as a distinctly unusual one. 1229

Abrams, M. H., and Stephen Greenblatt. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Volume 1. New York: Norton, 2000.

The Sixteenth Century, 1485-1603

The social and economic health of the nation had been severely damaged by the so-called Wars of the Roses, a vicious, decades-long struggle for royal power between the noble houses of York and Lancaster. The struggle was resolved by the establishment of the Tudor dynasty that ruled England from 1485 to 1603. 470

The court was a center of culture as well as power: court entertainments such as theater and masque (a sumptuous, elaborately costumed performance of dance, song, and poetry); court fashions in dress and speech; court tastes in painting, music, and poetry—all shaped the taste and imagination / of the country as a whole. Culture and power were not, in any case, easily separable in Tudor England. In a society with no freedom of speech as we understand it and with relatively limited means of mass communication, important public issues were often aired indirectly, through what we might now regard as entertainment, while lyrics that to us seem slight and nonchalant could serve as carefully crafted manifestations of rhetorical agility by aspiring courtiers. 470-471

Festive evenings with the likes of the ruthless Henry VIII were not occasions for relaxation. The court fostered paranoia—the principal character in John Skelton’s poem about court life is aptly named “Dread”—and an attendant obsession with secrecy, spying, duplicity, and betrayal. Courtiers were highly gifted at crafting and deciphering graceful words with double or triple meanings. Sixteenth-century poets had much to learn from courtiers, the Elizabethan critic George Puttenham observed; indeed many of the best poets in the period, Sir Thomas Wyatt, Sir Philip Sidney, Sir Walter Raleigh, and others, were courtiers. 471

If court culture fostered performances for a small coterie audience, other forces in Tudor England pulled toward a more public sphere. Markets expanded significantly, international trade flourished, and cities throughout the realm experienced a rapid surge in size and importance. London’s population in particular soared, from 60,000 in 1520 to 120,000 in 1550 to 375,000 a century later, making it the largest and fastest-growing city not only in England but in all of Europe. 471

The greater availability of books may also have reinforced the trend toward silent reading, a trend that gradually transformed what had been a communal experience into a more intimate encounter with a text. 472

Yet it would be a mistake to imagine these changes as sudden and dramatic. Manuscripts retained considerable prestige among the elite; throughout the sixteenth and well into the seventeenth centuries court poets in particular were wary of the “stigma of print” that might mark their verse as less exclusive. 472

During the fifteenth-century a few English clerics and government officials had journeyed to Italy and had seen something of the extraordinary cultural and intellectual movement flourishing in the city-states there. That movement, generally known as the Renaissance, involved a rebirth of letters and arts stimulated by the recovery of texts and artifacts from classical antiquity, the development of techniques such as linear perspective, and the creation of powerful new aesthetic norms based on classical models. 472

In the brilliant, intensely competitive, and vital world of Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, the submission of the human spirit to penitential discipline gave way to unleashed curiosity, individual self-assertion, and a powerful conviction that man was the measure of all things. To Renaissance intellectuals, the achievements of the pagan philosophers of antiquity came to seem more compelling than the subtle distinctions drawn by the Christian theologians of the Middle Ages. 472

The perception spurred an impossibly ambitious attempt to assert the underlying unity of the truth found in all philosophical systems, along with an emphasis on the worth of life in this world and the remarkable malleability of the individual. 472

This flowering, when it occurred, came not, as in Italy, in the visual arts and architecture. It came rather in the spiritual and intellectual orientation known as humanism. 473

That education—predominately male and conducted by tutors in wealthy families or in grammar schools—was ordered according to the subjects of the medieval trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music), but its focus shifted from training for the church to the general acquisition of “literature,” in the sense both of literacy and of cultural knowledge. For some of the more intellectually ambitious humanists, that knowledge extended to ancient Greek, whose enthusiastic adherents began to challenge the entrenched prestige of Latin. 473

Still, at the core of the curriculum remained the study of Latin, the mastery of which was in effect a prolonged male puberty rite involving pain as well as pleasure. 473

The purpose was to train the sons of the nobility and gentry to speak and write good Latin, the language of diplomacy, of the professions, and of all higher learning. Their sisters were always educated at home or in other noble houses. 473

from the Sententia Pueriles (Maxims for Children) for beginners on up through the dramatists Terence, Plautus, and Seneca, the poets Virgil and Orace, and the orator Cicero, the classics were also studied for the moral, political, and philosophical truths they contained. Though originating in pagan times, those truths could, in the opinion of many humanists, be reconciled to the moral vision of Christianity. 473

But throughout Europe nationalism and the expansion of the reading public were steadily strengthening the power and allure of the vernacular. 474

There had long been serious ideological and institutional tensions in the religious life of England, but officially at least England in the early sixteenth century had a single religion, Catholocism, whose acknowledged head was the pope in Rome. 474

What began in November 1517 as an academic disputation grew with amazing speed into a bitter, far-reaching, and bloody revolt that forever ruptured the unity of Western Christendom. When Luther rose up against the ancient church, he did so in the name of private conscience enlightened by a personal reading of the Scriptures. 475

Henry VIII, who had received from Pope Leo X the title Defender of the Faith for writing a book against Luther . . . 475

In 1533 Henry’s marriage to Catherine was officially declared null and void and Anne Boleyn was crowned queen. The king was promptly excommunicated by the pope, Clement VII. 475

The Act of Supremacy, passed later in the year, formally declared the king to be “Supreme Head of the Church in England” and again required an oath to this effect. 475

Protestants regarded Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine as invalid and hence deemed Mary illegitimate, so Catholics regarded his marriage to Anne Boleyn as invalid and hence deemed her daughter, Elizabeth, illegitimate. Henry VIII himself seemed to support both views, since only three years after divorcing Catherine, he beheaded Anne on charges of treason and adultery and urged Parliament to invalidate the marriage. Moreover, though during her sister’s reign Elizabeth outwardly complied with the official Catholic religious observance, Mary and her advisers suspected her of Protestant leanings, and the young princess’s life was in grave danger. Poised and circumspect, Elizabeth warily evaded the traps that were set for her. When she ascended the throne, her actions were scrutinized for some indication of the country’s future course. During her coronation procession, when a girl in an allegorical pageant presented her with a Bible in English translation—banned under Mary’s reign—Elizabeth kissed the book, held it up reverently, and laid it to her breast. England had returned to the Reformation. 477

Many English men and women, of all classes, remained loyal to the old Catholic faith, but English authorities under Elizabeth moved steadily, if cautiously, toward ensuring at least an outward conformity to the official Protestant settlement. 477

for the Protestant exiles who streamed back were eager not only to undo the damage Mary had done but also to carry the Reformation much further than it had gone. They sought to dismantle the church hierarchy, to purge the calendar of folk customs deemed pagan and the church service of ritual practices deemed superstitious, to dress the clergy in simple garb, and, at the extreme edge, to smash “idolatrous” statues, crucifixes, and altarpieces. Throughout her long reign, however, Elizabeth herself remained cautiously conservative and determined to hold religious zealotry in check. 477

In the space of a single lifetime, England had gone officially from Roman Catholicism, to Catholicism under the supreme headship of the England king, to a guarded Protestantism, to a more radical Protestantism, to a renewed and aggressive Roman Catholicism, and finally to Protestantism again. Each of these shifts was accompanied by danger, persecution, and death. It was enough to make people wary. Or skeptical. Or extremely agile. 477

Medieval England’s Jewish population, the recurrent object of persecution, extortion, and massacre, had been officially expelled by King Edward I in 1290, but Elizabethan England harbored a tiny number of Jews or Jewish converts to Christianity. They were the objects of suspicion and hostility. Elizabethans appear to have been fascinated by Jews and Judaism but quite uncertain whether the terms referred to a people, a foreign nation, a set of strange practices, a living faith, a defunct religion, a villainous conspiracy, or a messianic inheritance. 478

Jews were not officially permitted to resettle in England until the middle of the seventeenth century, and even then their legal status was ambiguous. 478

As the word “infection” suggests, Elizabethans frequently regarded blackness as a physical defect, though the black people who lived in England and Scotland throughout the sixteenth century were also treated as exotic curiosities. 478

Africans became increasingly popular as servants in aristocratic and gentle households in the last decades of the sixteenth century. 479

In the legal sphere, crown lawyers advanced the theory of “the king’s two bodies.” As England’s crowned head, Elizabeth’s person was mystically divided between her mortal “body natural” and the immortal “body politic.” While the queen’s natural body was inevitably subject to the failings of human flesh, the body politic was timeless and perfect. In political terms, therefore, Elizabeth’s sex was a matter of no consequence, a thing indifferent. 480

Elizabeth was drawn to the idea of royal absolutism, the theory that ultimate power was quite properly concentrated in her person and indeed that God had appointed her to be His deputy in the kingdom. Opposition to her rule, in this view, was not only a political act but also a kind of impiety, a blasphemous grudging against the will of God. 480

Apologists for absolutism contended that God commands obedience even to manifestly wicked rulers whom He has sent to punish the sinfulness of mankind. 480

Elizabeth ruled through a combination of adroit political maneuvering and imperious command, all the while enhancing her authority in the eyes of both court and country by means of an extraordinary cult of love. 480

Ambassadors, courtiers, and parliamentarians all submitted to Elizabeth’s cult of love, in which the queen’s gender was transformed from a potential liability into a significant asset. 480

England’s leading artists, such as the poet Spenser and the painter Nicholas Hilliard, enlisted themselves in the celebration of Elizabeth’s mystery, likening her to the goddesses of mythology and the heroines of the Bible: Diana, Astraea, Cynthia, Deborah. Her cult drew its power from cultural discourses that ranged from the secular (her courtiers could pine for her as the cruelly chaste mistress celebrated in Petrarchan love poetry) to the sacred (the veneration that under Catholicism had been due to the Virgin Mary could now be directed toward England’s semi-divine queen). 481

Pope Gregory XIII’s proclamation in 1580 that the assassination of the great heretic Elizabeth (who had been excommunicated a decade before) would not constitute a mortal sin. The immediate effect of the proclamation was to make life more difficult for English Catholics, most of whom were loyal to the queen but who fell under grave suspicion. 482

The career of professional writer in sixteenth-century England was almost impossible: there was no such thing as author’s copyright, no royalties paid to an author according to the sales of his book, and virtually no notion that anyone could make a decent living through the creation of works of literature. 483

Not surprisingly, therefore, literary texts sometimes bear traces of self-censorship and often deploy strategies of indirection designed to evade official scrutiny. 483

Fortunately, the system of state censorship was inefficient, and many men and women of the sixteenth century had a passionate determination to make themselves heard. 483

Elizabethan writers of exalted social standing, like the earl of Surrey or Sir Philip Sidney, thought of themselves as courtiers, statesmen, and landowners; poetry was for them an indispensable social grace and a deeply pleasurable, exalted form of play. 484

While Protestantism, with its emphasis on reading Scripture, certainly helped to improve female literacy in the sixteenth century, girls were rarely encouraged to pursue their studies. 485

Every piece of writing by a woman from this period is a triumph over nearly impossible odds. 485

Renaissance literature is the product of a rhetorical culture, a culture steeped in the arts of persuasion and trained to process complex verbal signals. (The contemporary equivalent would be the ease with which we deal with complex visual signals, effortlessly processing such devices as fade-out, montage, crosscutting, and morphing.) In 1512, Erasmus published a work called De copia that taught its readers how to cultivate “copiousness,” verbal richness, in discourse. The work obligingly provides, as a sample, a list of 144 different ways of saying “Thank you for your letter.” 485

Elizabethans had a taste for elaborate ornament in language as in clothing, jewelry, and furniture, and, if we are to appreciate their accomplishments, it helps to set aside the modern preference, particularly in prose, for unadorned simplicity and directness. 485

the succession of images in Shakespeare’s sonnet 73:

That time of year thou mayst in me behold

When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang

Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,

Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.

In me thou seest the twilight of such day

As after sunset fadeth in the west;

Which by and by black night doth take away,

Death’s second self that seals up all in rest.

In me thou seest the glowing of such fire

That on the ashes of his youth doth lie,

As the deathbed whereon it must expire,

Consumed with that which it was nourished by.

This thou perceiv’st, which makes thy love more strong,

To love that well, which thou must leave ere long.

What seems merely repetitious in Lyly here becomes a subtle, poignant amplification of the perception of decay, through the succession of images from winter (or late fall) to twilight to the last glow of a dying fire. Each of these images is in turn sensitively explored, so that, for example, the season is figured by bare boughs that shiver, as if they were human, and then these anthropomorphized tree branches in turn are figured as the ruined choirs of a church where services were once sung. No sooner is the image of singers in a church choir evoked than these singers are instantaneously transmuted back into the songbirds who, in an earlier season, had sat upon the boughs, while these sweet birds in turn conjure up the poet’s own vanished youth. And this nostalgic gaze extends, at least glancingly, to the chancels of the Catholic abbeys reduced to ruins by Proestant iconoclasm and the dissolution of the monasteries. All of this within the first four lines: here and elsewhere Shakespeare, along with other poets of his time, contrives to freight the small compass and tight formal constraints of the sonnet—fourteen lines of iambic pentameter in three-principal rhyming patters—with remarkable emotional intensity, psychological nuance, and imagistic complexity. The effect is what Christopher Marlowe called “infinite riches in a little room.” 486

But here and in other plain-style poetry, the somber, lapidary effect depends on a tacit recognition of the allure of the suppleness, grace, and sweet harmony that the dominant literary artists of the period so assiduously cultivated. 487

there is evidence of impressively widespread musical literacy . . . 487

In poetry and music, as in gardens, architecture, and dance, Elizabethans had a taste for elaborate, intricate, but perfectly regular designs. They admired form, valued the artist’s manifest control of the medium, and took pleasure in the highly patterned surfaces of things. Suspicion of surfaces, impatience with order, the desire to rip away the mask in order to discover a hidden core of experiential truth: these responses to art, highly characteristic of later periods, are far less in evidence in Renaissance aesthetics than is a delight in pattern. 487

Such an emphasis on conspicuous pattern might seem to encourage an art as stiff as the starched ruffs that ladies and gentlemen wore around their necks, but the period’s fascination with order was conjoined with a profound interest in persuasively conveying the movements of the mind and heart. 487

In his Defense of Poesy, the most important work of literary criticism in sixteenth-century England, Sidney claims that this magical power is also a moral power. All other arts, he argues, are subjected to fallend, imperfect nature, but the poet alone is free to range “within the zodiac of his own wit” and create a second nature, superior to the one we are condemned to inhabit. 489

Among the most prominent of the clusters of conventions in the period were those that defined the major literary modes (or “inds,” as Sidney terms them): pastoral, heroic, lyric, satiric, elegiac, tragic, and comic. 489

The conventions of the pastoral mode present a world inhabited by shepherds / and shepherdesses who are chiefly concerned to tend their flocks, fall in love, and engage in friendly singing contests. 490

Probably the most famous pastoral poem of the period is Marlowe’s The Passionate Shepherd to His Love, an erotic invitation whose promise of gold buckles, coral clasps, and amber studs serves to remind us that, however much it sings of naïve innocence, the mode is ineradicably sophisticated and urban. 490

With is rustic characters, simple concerns, and modest scope, the pastoral mode was regarded as situated at the opposite extreme from heroic, with is values of honor, martial courage, loyalty, leadership, and endurance and its glorification of a nation or people. 490

The spectacular mixing of genres in Spenser’s poem is only an extreme instance of a general Elizabethan indifference4 to the generic purity admired by writers, principally on the Continent, who adhered to Aristotle’s Poetics. Where such neoclassicists attempted to observe rigid stylistic boundaries, English poets tended to approach the different genres in the spirit of Sidney’s inclusivism: “if severed they be good, the conjunction cannot be hurtful.” 490

Several towns in late medieval England were the sites of annual festivals that mounted elaborate cycles of plays depicting the great biblical stories, from the creation of the world to Christ’s Passion and its miraculous aftermath. Many of these plays have been lost, but the surviving cycles, as the selection in this anthology demonstrates, include magnificent and complex works of art. They are sometimes called “mystery plays,” either because they were performed by the guilds of various crafts (known as “mysteries”) or, more likely, because they represented the mysteries of the faith. 491

Before the construction of the public theaters, the playing companies often performed short plays called “interludes” that were, in effect, staged dialogues on religious, moral, and political themes. 491

Some of Shakespeare’s amazing ability to look at critical issues from multiple perspectives may be traced back to this practice and the dramatic interludes it helped to inspire. 492

Another major form of theater that flourished in England in the fifteenth century and continued into the sixteenth was the morality play. Like the mysteries, moralities addressed questions of the ultimate fate of the soul. They did so, however, not by rehearsing scriptural stories but by dramatizing allegories of spiritual struggle. 492

Plays such as Mankind (ca. 1465-70) and Everyman (ca. 1495) show how powerful these unpromising-sounding dramas could be, in part because of the extraordinary comic vitality of the evil character, or Vice, and in part because of the poignancy and terror of an individual’s encounter with death. 492

If such plays sound more than a bit like sermons, it is because they were. The church was a profoundly different institution from the theater, but its professionals shared some of the same rhetorical skills. 492

Roman playwright Seneca, and Senecan influence—including violent plots, resounding rhetorical speeches, and ghosts thirsting for blood—remained pervasive in the Elizabethan period, giving rise to a subgenre of revenge tragedy. 492

A related but distinct kind is the villain tragedy in which the protagonist is blatantly evil: if Thomas Preston’s crude Cambyses, King of Persia (ca. 1560?) seems to bear out Aristotle’s strictures, in his Poetics, against attempting to use a wicked person as the hero of a tragedy, Shakespeare’s Richard III and Macbeth amply justify the general English indifference to classical rules. 492

The conventions of romantic comedy call for noble characters and a plot in which love triumphs over potentially tragic obstacles. 493

In the dismemberment with which Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus ends, the audience was witnessing the theatrical equivalent of the execution of criminals and traitors that they could have also watched in the flesh, as it were, nearby. 494

Moralists warned that the theaters were nests of sedition, and religious polemicists, especially Puritans, obsessively focusing on the use of boy actors to play the female parts, charged that theatrical transvestism excited illicit sexual desires, both heterosexual and homosexual. 495

It was at least plausible, as officially claimed, that in her dying breath, on March 24, 1603, Elizabeth designated James as her successor. A jittery nation that had feared a possible civil war lit bonfires to welcome its new king. But in a very few years, the English began to express nostalgia for the rule of “Good Queen Bess” and to look back on her reign as a magnificent high point in the history and culture of their nation. 496

Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. 243-340. “Fourth Essay. Rhetorical Criticism: Theory of Genres.” New York: Atheneum, 1967 (orig. 1957).

For all the loving care that is rightfully expended on the printed texts of Shakespeare’s plays, they are still radically acting scripts, and belong to the genre of drama. If a Romantic poet gives his poem a dramatic form, he may not expect or even want any stage representation; he may think entirely in terms of print and readers; he may even believe, like many Romantics, that the stage drama is an impure form because of the limitations it puts on individual expression. Yet the poem is still being referred back to some kind of theatre, however much of a castle in the air. A novel is written, but when Conrad employs a narrator help him tell his story, the genre of the written word is being assimilated into that of the spoken one…It might be thought simpler, instead of using the term radical, to say that the generic distinctions are among the ways in which literary works are ideally presented, whatever the actualities are. But Milton, for example, seems to have no idea of reciter and audience in mind for Paradise Lost; he seems content to leave it, in practice, a poem to be read in a book. When he uses the convention of invocation, thus bringing the poem into the genre of the spoken word, the significance of the convention is to indicate what tradition his work primarily belongs to and what its closes affinities are with. 247

Weimann, Robert. Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theater: Studies in the Social Dimension of Dramatic Form and Function. Ed. Robert Schwartz. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (1978, orig. 1967).


As the scene achieved a more representational quality, the actor began to submit to new conventions (those governing illusion and impersonation) even when he could exploit an awareness off their limitations. 9

The new illusion of solitude on the stage tended to disregard the presence of the audience, but the illusion of not being overheard still must have seemed so weak that it could be comically dismissed. 9

In spite of numerous transformations, he [the fool] has never achieved the psychological complexity or ability to develop associated with more modern dramatic characters. 11

The descendant of a ritual that has long since lost its original function, the fool is an atavistic agent of the cult, both the heir of myth and the child of realism—a contradiction in his genealogy that gives the fool his Janus-like status. 11

No other actor stands so clearly on the threshold between the play and the community occasion. 43

In the folk play, disguise is almost as important and traditional as the elements of song and dance. And again it is the fool who stands out as singer and dancer, a versatility that is not confined to the English ceremonial but is reflected in the etymology of Narr, the German equivalent of “fool,” derived from narro, which, like the old Indian nrtu (dancer), goes back to a common root, nart (to dance). 47

Self-introduction that stands apart from the dramatic action proper… 120

The age and power of the Vice lend themselves to the uses of topsy-turvydom, and yet the self-expressive function of this language is no longer solely nonrepresentational or grotesque. For the heritage of antic ritual expression has been incorporated within the allegorical form of dramatic action—an integration assisted by certain qualities of the English morality tradition itself. 122

Platea = place of extension with the audience; Loca = play world 130

The play is acted, therefore, on a level of dialogue as well as of narration. 131

But at the same time, this traditional perspective is no longer exclusively connected to the descendants of the Vice. Wherever the modern representative of evil (Gloucester, Iago, Edmund) tends to dominate the serious part itself, other figures, such as Brakenbury or the Scrivener in Richard III, or Poor Tom and the Fool in King Lear, are brought in to enunciate a complementary vision of the main theme. Their dramatic function is not a farcical one, but involves that special relationship with the audience which results from a platea-like position and allows the statement of generalized truth in a choric mode. 159

But usually this function is restricted to a single scene or a series of comic variations and extrapolations of he main course of serious events. It is only when, as in Richard III, Hamlet, Othello, and, partly, King Lear, the dramatic heirs of the Vice usurp and direct the main plot that their changing structural significance becomes infinitely expanded. Their extradramatic awareness becomes submerged and is adapted to the needs of a more highly self-contained dramatic action. Richard Gloucester, for instance, is presented as the image of a royal person in history, but at the same time he remains the punning, self-expressive ambidexter directing, in continuous contact with the audience, his own murderous rise to the throne. So the structural impact of the Vice tradition is felt inside the main plot and even as a grotesque stimulus to the main character as well. 159

The first great artistic portrait of a nascently tragic figure as central to the drama develops from a character—the Vice—deeply rooted in the popular tradition and now turned to a distinctively modern representation of reality. 160

However sinful he may be, Faustus craves “a greater subject (39); and this longing puts him far beyond the homiletic frame of reference. The challenge and inversion are not effected from the outside; they well up from within. Mephistophilis does remain the devilish tempter, but at the same time he is the hero’s intimate ally, the poetic projection and dramatic vehicle of Faustus’ own desires. 184

In shifting the spirit of inversion to within the hero himself, Marlowe created a new kind of character, one who is not only the object but also the Subjekt of the dramatic conflict, not only the victim but also the provocateur of a cosmic antagonism. 184

Insofar as it illuminated the character of the speaker, the way in which a speech was delivered could now be as dramatically significant as what was said. 200

And although such innovations in no way eliminated stock types, these elements now assumed their typicality not only though conventional (and hence easily recognizable0 poses or stock rhetorical formulate, but also by revealing specific patterns of behavior through skillfully juxtaposed word and action. As this affected the serious figures in drama, the changing conventions of speech reflected, and contributed to , the emergence of a new conception of character and a new image of the relationship between the individual and society. No longer functioning merely to represent preconceived attitudes or preordained patterns of static conflict such as the allegorical particularly well-suited to represent the movement (the relations and the struggle) between the world and the ego, environment and character. This involved the task of representing a variety of moral, psychological, and historical factors, a task that was finally achieved through a new dialectic between generality and detail, vision and experience. 200

It was in Marlowe’s plays that the serious hero, through a new realism in the interplay of speech and action, first moved to the foreground as an essentially individual and dynamic (as opposed to an allegorical and static, or unchanging) figure. 200

…an intellectual process that involves an empirically significant image of change and movement in thought or attitude. 201

Thus the pattern of the whole appears different: out of the antitheses of argument and counterargument comes an expression of genuine wavering an doubt, out of talking to himself…a genuine soliloquy, out of embellishing maxims a personal view of thingns to which Faustus has fought his way. 201

Far from being an achievement in technique alone, these new verbal modes of representation were predicated upon a changing apprehension of botht he function of art and the nature of human reality. 201

…new modes of correlating them more intimately and yet less directly.

Postallegorical 203

“The ‘character’ of a romance-hero is rather a rehearsed interior monologue than a meaningful and unpredictable dialogue with the outside world. To put it briefly, the hero has to realize his potential, not to come to terms with life” [quoting a student 204]

Hamlet also distances himself from the illusionistic modes of causality and locality and assumes a theatrically more neutral position from which he, as it were, collaborates with the audience. But, again, the traditional patterns of audience address are integrated into the dialogue with its mimesis of verbal exchange and leave-taking. Thus, an old popular stage convention is impressed into the service of a new kind of realism. 218

Potentialities of downstage acting.

Because of the variety of sources and influences that pervaded Elizabethan dramaturgy, monologue—like dialogue and the aside—was a changing and changeable form of speech that was capable of many different effects depending on the immediate dramatic context. Obviously monologue served both illusionistic and nonillusionistic, naturalistic and stylized functions. It could be used in aside or in the direct address of the prologue, or it could become a form of soliloquy or the kind of thinking out loud in which a character “in solitude renders an account to himself of his innermost thoughts and feelings.” In light of the rich and diverse dramatic functions of Shakespeare’s language, it is difficult to separate monologue and dialogue too dogmatically. We can say, however, that as a general rule the localization and neutralization of scene and action in downstage acting reflects, respectively, a dissociation from or identification with the audience, and that the structure and style of speech are largely determined by this relationship. 221

In Hamlet there are still signs of direct address (IV, 4, 47)[might want to look at this], but these are admittedly quite rare. More characteristic of play like Hamlet is an indirect audience contact that operates through an awareness of the theatrical medium itself. 222

He can, however, through his well-articulated counterperspective, expand the audience’s awareness and establish new, perhaps deeper and more comprehensive dramatic tensions that in their turn expand the meaning of the play as a whole. 227

The ritual identification between actor and audience, was, to be sure, a thing of the past in Shakespeare’s day; and so although Hamlet’s rapport with the audience may be linked to the self-introduction characteristic of the figures who traditionally acted on the platea, by the time Shakespeare made use of it, it had taken on entirely new forms and served entirely new functions. What has been termed the “extra-dramatic moment” in the Renaissance theater, then, was the product of both tradition and the new Renaissance conception of drama, by which means the connection between action and character became much more effective. 231

Lindley, Arthur. “The Unbeing of the Overreacher: Proteanism and the Marlovian Hero.” The Modern Language Review. 84.1 (1989): 1-17.

why, for example, do these plays and their protagonists so elaborately invite sympathy—soliloquy after soliloquy, each one crammed with every conceivable rhetorical appeal—and so violently discourage it—distancing irony piled upon distancing irony? 1

The Marlovian protagonist obsessively seeks the infinite in the finite, the absolute through the relative. Thus, as each nonce symbol is attained, it turns out not to be the real thing and is devalued and discarded as the imagination reinvents its object. 10

As Stephen Greenblatt puts it, the ‘one critical link’ between Marlowe’s protagonists is that ‘they are using up experience’ (p.198) 10

The tangible goals experience can provide are valuable because they stand for something beyond themselves, but contemptible and disposable because they cannot be that something. The true end, the thing these nonce symbols are meant to stand for, remains both ineffable and unattainable, beyond not merely the treacheries of possession but those of expression: ‘one grace, one wonder… / Which into words no virtue can digest’ (Tamburlaine, Part I, 5.2.109-10). You can, briefly, have Zenocrate; you can not have Beauty. When you have the (mere) woman, you alternate between deifying her and regarding her as a source of effeminate pollution: the ‘amorous’ looks which remind you that your sons are not exclusively yours (Tamburlaine, Part II, 1.4.21) 10

Thus, finding himself abased by love for Zenocrate, Tamburlaine must cast the relationship into a form more suitable to his fiction of himself. He does this, in the great soliloquy on beauty (Tamburlaine, Part I, 5.2.72-127), by drawing a firm line between essential Beauty, which is heavenly, ineffable, and unreachable, and its representatives on earth, who are not only reachable but disposable. He has, after all, just had a hundred of them put to death. He can then conflate the two, beginning at the point where the earthly Zenocrate gives ‘instructions’ to the heavenly Beauty (1.83), and proceeding through the lines about poets, where Beauty is at once transcendent and subsumed (it ‘hover[s] in their restless heads’ (1.108; my italics)), until he arrives at the point where beauty is reduced to passive and applauding spectatorship at his glory (2.115-19).

Simply put, the speech is not about Zenocrate or about Beauty; it is about Tamburlaine, as what speech of his is not? Its function is to restore him to a position of centrality in his own mind, to convert beauty from a source of pain to a source of applause, and to declare his own virtue (not hers or the poets’) ‘the sum of glory’ (1.126). I take the notorious grammatical confusion about ‘conceiving and subduing both’ as an enactment of his confused effort to assert mastery over whatever in the speech (beauty, thought, self, other) threatens to escape his control. He has, after all, just admitted a kind of defeat, neatly transferred from himself to poets, whose brains (not his own exactly) finally cannot ‘digest’ essential beauty into words. He can then push that failure further away by reminding himself of ‘the terror of [his] name” (1.113)—an assertion of the power of a word following upon an admission of the failure of words—and going on to reassure himself that even stooping to love is proof of his Jupiter-like divinity (2.121-125). At the point where he has finally assured himself that submission (love) is really assertion (conquest), that he will ‘march in cottages’ (1.124) as if he were sacking them, he can afford to turn his attention to whether Bajazeth has been fed. What Tamburlaine does to his enemies is nothing compared with what he does to logic. 13

Leggatt, Alexander. “Tamburlaine’s Sufferings.” The Yearbook of English Studies. Vol. 3. (1973): 28-38.

But during the siege of Damascus, he is allowed a rare moment of introspection, pausing alone on the stage to consider a debate in his own mind—the only, it would appear, that he is ever confronted with. This radical departure from Marlowe’s normal means of presenting the hero compels us to listen to his words with particular care. Zenocrate has begged him to spare her father the Soldan, and his for beauty tempts him to yield. 28

This is the moment when Tamburlaine seems most human, when his pageant of battle and death becomes intelligible as part of the general, restless striving that drives man forward in all his endeavours, from love to poetry to war. Surrendering to Zenocrate’s beauty would be ‘To harbour thoughts effeminate and faint’, Save only […] (5.2.114). The contemplation of beauty brings not peace, but restlessness, and Tamburlaine, it would appear, sees this as analogous with the restlessness of the warring elements that drive him to seek ‘the sweet fruition of an earthly crown’ (1.2.7.29). And when he concludes ‘That virtue solely is the sum of glory / And fashions men with true nobility’ (5.2.126) we may, I think, identify that ‘virtue’ as the courageous striving for the unattainable that unites the poet, the lover, and the warrior. Tamburlaine at this point contains elements of all three. 29

The great soliloquy on beauty rises out of, and circles back into, the squalid cruelty of conquest. 29

The coarseness of ‘slaughtered carcasses’ haunts us during the opening lines of the soliloquy. And Tamburlaine’s last instruction to his followers suggests that even as he contemplates Zenocrate’s beauty the carnage that she tried to prevent is going on offstage. 30

Tamburlaine’s mind, in soliloquy, is still free to probe after ‘knowledge infinite’ but in action, in his dealings with other characters, he is becoming an ordinary tyrant. In the siege of Damascus, his mind is liberated when his attendants leave the stage, and imprisoned again when they return. 30

He thinks of patterns on maps, identifying Zenocrate not with the town where she was born but with the towns that he will name after her. She is part of the panoply of his greatness, and he is not interested, in any ties that she may have with a world that is not of his making. 30-31

In the end, he unbends to the extent of sparing her father, and this provides a kind of resolution for Part One. 31

She fears—and Tamburlaine’s enemies expect—the sort of action we see in, for example, Shakespeare’s Henry VI and Richard III, a grimly logical cycle of crime, curse, and punishment, broken only by the intervention of an outsider with a clean record. But this is not what happens to Tamburlaine, or at least not in the clear and simple way that the other characters expect. 32

Rather it depends, I would argue, on the simple theatrical consideration that excitement in the same kind of event repeated over and over again is impossible to sustain. 33

The mystery is also dissipated by the increase in on-stage killing in Part Two, in which Tamburlaine himself participates for the first time when he kills Calyphas. Tamburlaine himself is now more ordinary; the air of god-like immunity is beginning to fade. In Part Two he gets his first wound (though it is self-inflicted). 34

But at the end of Part Two, Marlowe at last faces the grisly logic of Tamburlaine’s position: the hero is doomed to a life of endless repetition. the image of the chariot which is also a prison suggests the terrible limitations of Tamburlaine’s life; he is a machine capable of only one thing—conquest. The repetition of anything, even success, finally becomes a kind of nightmare, since it denies the variety and spontaneity of life. 36

Only once did Tamburlaine speak of his ‘sufferings’. But that was in a speech in which he searched the very heart of his vision, and found there a desire that by its very nature could never be satisfied. 38

Leech, Clifford. “The Structure of ‘Tamburlaine.’” The Tulane Drama Review. 8.4.
(1964): 32-46.

[Mycetes engages in] a puerile imitation of regal language. 33

[Agydas’s death] It is the first time we have seen the death of one of Tamburlaine’s enemies away from the battlefield, the first hint that the price of Tamburlaine’s assertion may be high. 35

Professor G.I. Duthie has argued that dramatic shape is given to I Tamburlaine through the conflict that arises in the hero’s mind between his passion for conquest and his passion for Zenocrate, which leads him to feel an impulse to tenderness and finally to spare Zenocrate’s father. Certainly we have seen him changing his mind about the Soldan, and have noticed a new touch of pity in his words to the Virgins of Damascus. 37

the slaughter of the Virgins shows Tamburlaine in the trap of his own commitment; 38

In fact, the sparing of the Soldan, like the glimpse of pity when Tamburlaine see the Virgins, like the final truce-making with the world, appears a nugatory gesture which runs counter to the general direction which Tamburlaine must now follow. We have seen, moreover, that the adversaries of Tamburlaine are differently presented from one another: increasingly he is opposed to men with a better cause. 38

Moreover, there is one prominent feature of Part II which is characteristic of sequels—the free use of incidents which parallel incidents in the original play. 38

2. The silent rebuke of Agydas in Part I, followed by his receiving the dagger, has an affiliation with the killing of Calyphas, who is not allowed to speak when his father returns for the execution. There is inversion here, not merely in the matter of the silence (of Tamburlaine in Part I, of his victim in Part II) but in the fact that Calyphas has damaged Tamburlaine’s glory with a touch of absurd comment. The disposal of Agydas, though pathetic in relation to the victim, is triumphant for Tamburlaine. 39

This is Tamburlaine’s revenge for the funeral rites which the concubines have given to Calyphas. 40

The taking of Damascus was part of Tamburlaine’s campaign against the Soldan; the taking of Babylon is an isolated incident in what appears to be indiscriminate conquest. 40

7. The suicide of Olympia after her husband’s death corresponds to Zabena’s suicide following Bajazeth’s. But Tamburlaine is not involved in the incident in Part II, and Theridamas’ love for Olympia contrasts with the general indifference to Zabena when she lived. 40

It will be apparent that the parallels are in each case incomplete, and that the general effect of the difference is to make Tamburlaine’s stature shrink even as he tries to magnify it. This is reinforced in several other ways in Part II. 40

He can kill Calyphas, but cannont silence our memory of the boy’s ridicule. 41

Tamburlaine has made a pact with himself, in disregard of other human beings (even, ultimately, of Zenocrate) and of cosmic processes. 41

it is true that Bajazeth’s and Zabena’s escape through suicide suggests a limit to his power, but it is not a limit that exists within the frame of a lifetime; and, though at the end there is a conflict between the claims of conquest and beauty, it does not diminish Tamburlaine’s avowed self-confidence or his power to do what his resolved will chooses. 45

Jones, Robert C. Engagement with Knavery: Point of View in Richard III, The Jew of Malta, Volpone, and The Revenger’s Tragedy. Durham: Duke University Press (1986).


The knavish heroes featured in the titles of Richard III, The Jew of Malta, Volpone, and The Revenger’s Tragedy are given a commanding ‘reach’ not only over the action of their respective plays, but over their audiences’ view of that action as well. 1

Granted that not even the most insistent chorus can control our view of a presented dramatic action as the narrator who filters our entire experience of a novel through his selective voice can; still, t he ways in which our angle of vision is aligned with or distinguished from those of the various participants in a play and the consequences of such alignments for our sense of the play we are watching offer a ‘problem’ of genuine interest to the student (as well as the writer) of drama; and that problem (though I would prefer a term that smiled more invitingly toward our inquiry) surely concerns us with point of view, or perspective. In fact, the twofold implications of these terms make them especially appropriate for my purposes. On the one hand, they emphasize the actual spectator in the theater and the activity of watching the performance taking place. In this sense, ‘point of view’ more literally describes an audience’s experience of a play than it does a reader’s experience of a novel. At the same time, like perspective, point of view suggests the attitude we adopt toward the action we watch and toward the characters who perform it for us. It is precisely that complex activity, the process of forming a particular attitude toward the characters acting before us, that I want to trace as accurately as I can. 2

If even as an audience our perspective may be limited—if we sometimes know less than certain characters, and if plays vary in the degree of foreknowledge they allow us and the kinds of ‘mysteries’ with which they may leave us—it is nevertheless true that by the end of the play we have usually seen things more completely and more distinctly than we are able to do outside the theater or than the characters who come and go are able to do within the play itself. 3

That they come and go while we watch them all is a crucial factor distinguishing our larger view from their limited perspective, of course. But even characters who see what we see may be most notable for their failure to understand as we do and for the consequent disparity between their view of the action and ours. 3

Similar situations are a staple of English Renaissance drama, and though hierarchies of awareness add interest to plays in every theatrical mode, the soliloquies and asides that facilitate our appreciation of them on Shakespeare’s open stage make them especially effective there. 4

Whatever attraction these four schemers hold for us has little to do with sympathy or kinship. 5

His monstrous appearance [Richard], of which he makes so much, naturally works to preclude such identification, and the fact that he is a virtual grotesque may actually make it easier to enjoy his villainous fun without seeing ourselves in his image. 5

…and the alien, bottle-nosed Barabas, to name a few. 5

We can share a knave’s enjoyment of his own sport at a foolish victim’s expense without likening ourselves to him. 6

I want to show how the dramatist uses his theatrical art to draw us into or distance us from a given character’s viewpoint, and I will try to make my argument stand firmly on such demonstration rather than on assumptions about the psychology of the audience. 6

It should be clear, for one thing, that the understanding my readings aim at has more to do with the experience of each play as it confronts its audience than with a ‘meaning’ or ‘theme’ that might be extracted from it by studying its verbal or structural patterns or its historical context. 7

I am not thereby disclaiming any interest in what a play makes us think. Rather, I am asserting my primary interest in how it makes us see, feel, and think as we watch and respond to its characters in action, and how our attitude toward what they say and do is made to correspond with or differ from theirs. Pursuing such questions involves, as an almost inevitable corollary, the habit of referring to the posited audience as ‘we’ or ‘us,’ a habit I have already indulged in this Introduction. 6-7

That each play ‘implies’ an audience to appreciate it in its own terms. 8 [FN]: Janet Adelman : “a play must teach us how to see it” (The Common Liar, 11)

Except for The Jew of Malta’s clear indication that its professedly Christian audience would normally enjoy the sport of Jew-baiting… 8

…prefer to align itself with wit rather than folly when the two meet onstage. 8-9

The contradictory attitudes these knaves almost inevitably provoke in us make our relationship with them, or the play’s use of our point of view toward them, a more complex process than it would be in the cases of their near kindred on either side, the blameless wits who entertain us in many comedies and the joyless or foolish villains whose deeds we readily condemn in various tragedies. 9

If the comedy approves their goals, rakish gallants who would never be allowed to enter Dame Custance’s prim parlor can nonetheless engage us in their schemes without troubling our consciences. 9

On the other hand, the absence of this puckish spirit of sheer, mischievous fun can leave us totally detached from a villain who has no other capacity to involve us (as Macbeth surely does involves us) in his problems. Paradoxically, the more detached a knave can remain from the self-serving goals of his scheme—the more, that is, he approximates the spirit of Puck’s ‘sport alone’ as he plays on his victims—the more engaged we are likely to be in his fun and his point of view.

Successful knaves customarily invite our participation in their fun by sharing it with us through soliloquies and asides that confirm the mutual superiority of our awareness over their hapless dupes. There is, however, nothing intrinsically winning about confidentiality. A villain’s soliloquy, even when it provides our heightened overview of the action, can a easily make us abhor or oppose him as enjoy him. 10

When a villain’s soliloquy simply invites us to look into him and consider his villainy, it speaks to our normal judgment of such crimes without engaging our natural theatrical attraction to playful wit and creative dramatic art. 11

It is, then, the combination of puckish sport and malicious crime that distinguishes the knave from either honest wits on the one hand or solemn villains on the other and complicates our relationship with im in the plays to be discussed here. 11

…how audiences are actually made to act out their rejection of the Vice. 11

But the basic problem remains the same. We may be quite properly laughing at Tom Tosspot or Cuthbert Cutpurse, but if we are laughing altogether with the Vice, Nichol Newfangle, as he snares his victims into the Devil’s party, we are sharing a point of view that is perilous for us according to the play’s morality. 13

[direct address from Everyman, 15]

Even when (and perhaps because) the Vice took over a larger proportion of the action in the later interludes, most dramatists were careful to prod the audience into acting out its dissociation from the Vice early in the play, in the very process of being entertained by him. 17 [FN]: Bevington: From ‘Mankind’ to Marlowe

Since some of these later knaves are as vicious as Iniquity could ever hope to be, and since they oppose ‘Virtues’ as pure as Richmond and Celia, the distinction is not a moral one but one of theatrical mode. Though the Shakespearean villain and Johnsonian knave make direct appeals to us from the stage, they do not openly interact with us or even overtly acknowledge our responses as an audience, except by way of inviting our applause at the end of a comedy. 17

For all the versatile theatricalism that allows them their explanatory soliloquies and mocking asides, the knaves to be considered here do not jostle us as they enter or exit, do not taunt us about our displayed behavior toward them, and do not invite us to join in their activities as did their earlier counterparts in the moral interludes. In the move from hall to theater, from ‘place’ to stage, the Vice’s knavish heirs distance themselves from us to this extent. They still play to us, but they do not force us to be participating actors in their plays and do not therefore make us self-consciously act out our conspiratorial engagement with them [short example] or our dissociation from them [short example]. 18

In Weimann’s terms…It would be fair to say, for example, that we become more detached from Richard as he moves from his early platea-oriented position near the audience to the locus-based throne. 19

The nature of our engagement with Richard depends partly on the degree to which he remains within the self-contained world of the play rather than breaking through it in Nichol’s overt manner. 19

Flexible theatricalism 19

Its flexible theatricalism, rather, allows dynamic interaction with the audience without insisting that we reflect on that experience or consciously assess the relationship between our ‘real world’ and the presented dramatic illusion. Of the four plays to be considered here, only The Jew of Malta makes such an assessment an important element in our relationship with the presiding knave. In that case, Marlowe stands Weimann’s scheme on its head, for it is the audience-oriented Barabas whom we are encouraged to place in a fictive (if scarcely ‘ideal’) play world and the self-contained Ferneze in whom we recognize ‘the real world of everyday experience.’ 20

Such reflective moments in the play overtly express its solid moral overview, I believe, and it is mainly by ‘pondering the play’ at their own discretion that skeptics call that moral overview into question. I am not faulting the method, but simply distinguishing it and its results from mine. 23

Rather than attempting to harmonize the play, my own reading attends instead to the jolting shifts in perspective that its sudden turns force upon an audience. Where our normal expectations are assaulted so violently…23

[FN]: Harry notes that Barabas has more lines than any other Marlovian character.

Evasiveness violates the normal rules of our relationship with knaves, who fool everyone else but are ‘honest’ with us. Barabas fools us on occasion as well, which is one reason why our relationship with this buoyant knave is such a volatile one. 63

The normal behavior for Prologues was courteous address, and their normal function straight, informative explication of the piece to follow. 64

This division of the world into two kinds of Machiavels, the open advocates (but where are they among us?) and the secret admirers, puts a snaffle in disapproval’s mouth. Our very rejection of the creed that follows identifies us, in such a world, as covert Machiavels. 63

In fact, the play shows us a world divided just along the lines the Prologue has drawn for ours. On the one hand, there is Barabas, whose stage villainy makes him all too apparent a Machiavel; on the other, Ferneze, on whose cold lips the master’s name would never appear and who is therefore a more truly effective disciple. 66

But a greedy Jew fondling his ill-gotten gains? We know well enough how to ‘grace him as he deserves’! 6

There are other Jews in Malta, as we shall see; but everyone knows who the Jew of Malta is. 67

Though we see his point of view here (as his baffled brethren do not), he shares no joke and no scheme with us. In fact, we may be stung by Barabas’s taunts into a less-than-Christian gratification that he is hailed so summarily out of his countinghouse by the Maltese authorities, or be lured into supposing him too naively secure when he brushes aside the apparent threat to his ‘peaceful rule’ (though his final solitary scrutiny of Turkish policy should dampen any such hope). If so, we are picking up the habit of matching wits with Barabas and of measuring ourselves against him that the play will encourage to the end. In any case, we are in the hands of a very different sort of knave than Richard. 70

We may have been prepared to enjoy the rich Jew’s discomfiture, but we cannot evade the clear justice and accuracy of his changes against his Christian persecutors. 72

We need not accept all Barabas’s arguments in the ensuing debate in order to be impressed by the fact that he alone attempts to stand out against the clear injustice. 73

In spite of Barabas’s previous resolve to ‘make sure for one,’ everything that follows his muttered surprise at the government’s terms (‘How, a Christian! Hum, what’s here to do?’ [74-75]) has encouraged us to believe that the wily Jew has actually been caught out and, in his anger and grief, is reaping the bitter consequences. If we have been drawn into generously acknowledging his grievance, then he has made fools of us along with everyone onstage. And his knavish confidentiality after the fact is, therefore, a slap in the face that lumps us with the other simple ‘base slaves’ who have underestimated him.

We learn the hard way not to trust Barabas and not, by all means, to pity him again.

[FN]: But the Vice’s customary way, like that of other knaves who aim at a comic response, is to confide in the audience first and to let us share the joke of his ‘hypocrisy’ with him.

And we won’t let the comfortable detachment of our comic pleasure at Barabas’s sudden reversal slip back into any serious investment in his plight. We will sit back, rather, and watch him ‘sink or swim’—his own terms for his options here. 75

But he has put us off so effectively that now, when he starts a plot in motion with our full awareness for the first time in the play, we can watch his ‘shifts’ with impartial amusement. 76

As Barabas repeatedly thrusts poor Abigail off and then yanks her back again for another anxious aside, we are bound to laugh; and such asides make him more the object than the director of our fun. 76-77

On the very heels of the soliloquy in which he has insulted us for trusting his grief. 77

In this context, when she gives herself so completely over to her father and his stratagem, we are more likely to condescend to her as the Jew’s fool than look up to her as our humane exemplar. We are simply not allowed to watch this play through Abigail’s soft eyes. 77

Barabas’s tragedy is our comedy. Nothing could amuse us more at this point than the sight of ‘poor Barabas’ running ‘vex’d and tormented’ with thoughts distempered by miserly greed. That his lament (laden as it is with sad presaging ravens and the contagion of night’s sable wings) verges on parody makes our amusement all the easier to enjoy. 78

Rather than the commanding Jew who surprised and offended us in the first scene or the wily Jew who fooled and insulted us in the second, we now finally have what we expected but did not get at the beginning: the caricature Jew ‘who smiles to see how full his bags are cramm’d.’ 79

But if he is now master of the action that he both presents and directs, and if that action is now played primarily for our amusement, we nevertheless continue to enjoy Barabas and his show from the superior perspective he afforded us in his miserly ecstasy. 79

If he is so nasty and so noxious, how can we be amused by Barabas and his villainy? Partly because he is so nasty and so noxious, of course. 81

[FN]: Barabas and Ithamore make “a diabolical comedy team” (Douglas Cole, “Comic Accomplice...”)

Neither setting Abigail’s suitors (and later the friars) at self-destructive odds nor poisoning the nuns’ rice requires any remarkable ingenuity; so when we are asked to marvel at the performance (‘Why, was there ever such villainy…), we won’t respond in kind, as we do when Richard puts this sort of question to us [example]. 84

…but we smile at the extremity of Barabas’s showiness. 85

But most of Barabas’s scheming is conducted with such a flurry of explanatory asides and such an elaborate shuffling back and forth between dupes who are only too willing to be moved about like wooden pawns that we are more amused by the ‘busyness’ of his knavery than by its wit. He ‘acts’ his villainy in a manner that is as hyperbolically stagy as his description of it to Ithamore had been. 85

In the two brief scenes in which Ferneze first allies himself with the Spaniards (act 2, scene 2) and then defies the Turks (act 3, scene 5), there are no confidential asides or soliloquies, no villainous leers or wicked smiles, no propped-up friar’s corpses or poisoned pots, and no indecorous jokes—none of the things, that is, that make the antics of Barabas and Ithamore so pointedly theatrical. 85

…we must now rely entirely on our own shrewdness to penetrate the diplomatic smokescreen. 85

…reveals the solemn governor and the grotesque Jew as brothers under the skin—politicians both, who use similarly deceptive means to self-serving ends in a world where ‘the wind that bloweth all’ is ‘desire of gold’… 87

The real distinction between the Jew and the governor, then, is not a matter of morality but of theatrical mode. Set against Barabas’s stagecraft, which appeals so openly to our sense of theater, Ferneze’s careful statecraft calls inevitably on our sense of reality: this, we recognize, is how actual policy works. 88

But our very capacity to understand Ferneze’s political world without any explanatory asides inevitably reduces Barabas’s ostentatious villainy by comparison to something less ‘serious,’ less challenging and more entertaining. 88

…between the intellectual demands of what we take to be a mirror of reality and the easier pleasures of that which we place as fiction. 88

It may be significant that Ferneze adopts so easily the appropriate hyperbolic mode when he enters Barabas’s “play,” whereas Barabas later cannot manage successfully the shift into Ferneze’s political world. 89

Barabas’s stagecraft and Ferneze’s statecraft now meet head on. We can no longer give each its distinctive due in alternate scenes. We must now respond to each more directly in terms of the other, as Barabas tries to convert Ferneze’s solid political arena into his own garish brand of theater. 92

From Ferneze, who never in his tenure as governor spoke a private word our way. 94

But our strongest impression of Ferneze and Barabas, confirmed more than ever by their conclusive showdown, is of their radical difference in kind, not their likeness. 96

…but all his elaborate preparations are going into the construction of a stage on which he will act his last scene. Only he could have contrived this spectacular finale for us, a theatrical coup that more than makes up for the anticlimactic moment in act 5, scene 1, when flat Ferneze had left both Barabas and the play apparently dead. But Ferenze is content to let Barabas have the show; he will settle for the governorship. His single aside in the entire play is a quiet and condescending appreciation of the Jew’s closing performace:… 96

This refusal to tip us a wink makes Ferneze theatrically unattractive, but politically perfect. 97

The norm of the age’s drama, however, is a multiplicity and variety of focus through which our view of any one character, even those who are most important to us, is modified or mediated by others who also demand our attention. Often, and in the nature of the case, characters who stand somewhat aside from the center have a more openly directive effect on our point of view than the highlighted principals themselves. Nor need such directive characters be mere choruses. 151

But nowhere in the period is our interest focused more intensely through characters who manage both to be at the center of the action and to attempt a directive presenter’s overview of it than in the four plays discussed here. 151

What we should think is scarcely a problem here, but the art with which Shakespeare engages us theatrically and then steers us toward a ‘proper’ view surely merits our study. 153

Showing these differences, as I hope my study has done, emphasizes the dramatic life of a play as we experience it rather than treating it as a thesis on policy or revenge. 153

Greenfield, Matthew. “Christopher Marlowe’s Wound Knowledge.” PMLA. 119.2
(2004): 233-2463

What they fell, though, includes not just agony but also a stranger response to severe physical trauma: they develop an uncanny knowledge of what is happening inside their bodies, including the precise anatomy of their injuries and the physiology of the onset of death. In their death speeches, these characters conduct their own autopsies. Their would descriptions provide a useful challenge to our general assumptions about embodiment, pain, and interiority. 233

When Tamburlaine’s wife, Zenocrate, says that her eyes are “glutted” with the sight of two corpses (1.5.1.340), she means she has been overwhelmed by pity, but “glutted” evokes the shadow of a different kind of onlooker, a hungry predator who feeds on spectacles of pain. 234

***Marlowe’s plays continually redistribute sympathy, refusing to allow their audiences a sustained identification with any of their characters (Smith 209, 218).

Marlowe uses self-anatomization as one of his central tropes for the theatrical transaction between spectator and performer. When Marlowe’s characters turn their vision inward, in a peculiarly literal form of interiority, and map the damage to their veins and arteries, they temporarily take possession of the stage. 234

Mortally wounded characters in Renaissance drama often speak with special authority and intensity and at surprising length. 235

Where one would expect to find a martyr’s final profession of faith, instead one finds a verbal self-dissection. 236

A dichotomy is a thing that has been cut in two, and an epitome is a thing that has been cut short. 236

many of Tamburlaine’s victims also perform a sort of verbal self-dissection as they die. 236

By presenting a severely injured character who claims to be in pain but exhibits behavior conventionally associated with the absence of pain, this scene deliberately puzzles and teases the play’s audience, raising doubts about what Cosroe experiences and underlining how difficult it is to describe one’s own pain and to believe in the pain of others. 237

n. 15, p. 244 – One might reasonably wonder if Cosroe’s self-anatomy can be undertood as pure extravagant theatricality, a fictive performance not grounded in actual physical sensation and not meant to be plausible. But any pain behavior in daily life is subject to the same skepticism, the same fear of the theatrical and the performative. To paraphrase Butler, the actor’s performance of pain is to quotidian pain behavior not as copy is to original but as copy is to copy. The fear of being deceived by a theatrical performance may itself be a ruse, a defense against an uncomfortable empathy and an inconvenient ethical obligation.

Tamburlaine’s victims also discover a strange and compelling new knowledge in their wounds. When they share this fascinating knowledge, they momentarily arrest the forward progress of the plot and secure the attention of all the other characters present. 238

Critics frequently neglect the crucial role of Zenocrate, who serves as a proxy for the theater audience and suggests to it possible responses to Tamburlaine’s conquests. 239

The self-mutilation reflects not only a desire to instruct his sons but also curiosity and perhaps even envy. He recognizes an opportunity for a new glory and a new species of compelling theater. 240

***The doctor tells Tamburlaine that if he does not rest he will die, but Tamburlaine ignores the doctor’s advice and has himself carried into battle one last time: his death is a sort of suicide. 241

Doctor Faustus and the second part of Tamburlaine move toward an ultimately unsuccessful self-dissection. 241

Tamburlaine and Faustus could be seen as groping toward the deepening psychological interiority often associated with Shakespeare, the Reformation, and modernity: Marlowe’s characters have become mysterious to themselves. But in the deaths of characters like Cosroe, the captain of Balsera, and Bajazeth in the first of Tamburlaine and Charles IX and the queen of Navarre in The Massacre at Paris, Marlowe offers a strange alternative to the versions of self-narration emerging in his historical moment. In Marlowe’s thought experiments, awareness of the interior spaces, structures, and processes of one’s body displaces other forms of self-awareness. These moments of corporeal insight combine two ordinarily incompatible types of knowledge: first, the knowledge of what it is like to be embodied and, second, the knowledge of what it is like to dissect someone else’s body. 242

In the twenty-first century, we occasionally bring these two types of knowledge together when we undergo an ultrasound examination and see our own hearts pulsing, our own lungs filling and deflating, our own fetuses kicking; what we see teaches us to be more attentive to the vague and cryptic sensations emanating from inside us. 242

Can we expand the perimeter of the self until it annexes the hidden, alien regions deep inside the body? Can we incorporate external representations of our anatomies into our subjective experience of self? 242

Greenblatt, Stephen J. “Marlowe, Marx, and Anti-Semitism.” Critical Inquiry. 5.2 (1978): 291-307.

The Jew of Malta opens with an apparent gesture toward the same principle of differentiation that governs The Merchant of Venice. Marlowe’s Jew is introduced in the prologue by Macheuill as one “Who smiles to see how full his bags are cramb’d”; he enters, then, already trailing clouds of ignominy, already a “marked case.” But while never relinquishing the anti-Semitic stereotype, Marlowe quickly suggests that the Jew is not the exception to but rather the true representative of his society. Though he beings with a paean to liquid assets, Barabas is not primarily a usurer, set off by his hated occupation from the rest of the community, but a great merchant, sending his argosies around the world exactly as Shakespeare’s much-loved Antonio does. 296

Barabas’ own desire of gold, so eloquently voiced at the start and vividly enacted in the scene in which he hugs his money bags, is the glowing core of that passion which fires all the characters. To be sure, other values are expressed—love, faith, and honor—but as private values, these are revealed to be hopelessly fragile, while as public values, they are revealed to be mere screens for powerful economic forces. 296

…this ideology is clearly subordinated to considerations of profit. 297

[quoting Marx]: The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only by acquiring the power of money, but also because money had become, through him and also apart from him, a world power, while the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves in so far as the Christians have become Jews. [P. 35]

Barabas’ avarice, egotism, duplicity, and murderous cunning do not signal his exclusion from the world of Malta but rather his central place within it. His “Judaism” is, again, in Marx’s words, “a universal antisocial element of the present time” (p. 34). 297

For neither Marlowe nor Marx does this recognition signal a turning away from Jew-baiting; if anything, Jew-baiting is intensified even as the hostility it excites is directed as well against Christian society. Thus Marlowe never discredits anti-Semitism, but he does discredit early in the play a “Christian” social concern that might otherwise have been used to counter a specifically Jewish antisocial element. 297

Barabas’ frequent asides assure us that he is feeling contempt even when he is not openly expressing it, and the reiteration of the derogatory epithet ‘slaue’ firmly anchors this contempt in the structure of relations that governs the play. 298

Barabas express in extreme, unmediated form the motives that have been partially disguised by the spiritual humbug of Christianity. 299

…his actions are always responses to the initiatives of others. 299

Nevertheless, Barabas’ sense of himself, his characteristic response to the world, and his self-presentation are very largely constructed out of the materials of the dominant, Christian culture. 300

…a society whose speech is a tissue of aphorisms. Whole speeches are little more than strings of sayings: maxims are exchanged, inverted, employed as weapons; the character enact and even deliberately ‘stage’ proverbs. 300

Proverbs in The Jew of Malta are a kind of currency, the compressed ideological wealth of the society. Their terseness corresponds to that concentration of material wealth that Barabas celebrates. 300

This is not the exotic language of the Jews but the product of the whole society, indeed its most familiar and ordinary face. 301

Most dramatic characters—Shylock is the appropriate example—accumulate identity in the course of their play; Barabas loses it. He is never again as distinct and unique an individual as he is in the first moments. 301

But Barabas does seem set apart from everyone in the play, especially in his cold clarity of vision, his apparent freedom from all ideology. “A counterfet profession is better / Then vnseene hypocrisie” (1.531-32), he tells his daughter. In the long run, the play challenges this conviction, at least from the point of view of survival; the governor, who is the very embodiment of “vnseene hypocrisie,” eventually triumphs over the Jew’s “counterfet profession.” But Marlowe uses the distinction to direct the audience’s allegiance toward Barabas; to lie and to know that one is lying seems more attractive, more moral even, than to lie and believe that one is telling the truth. 302

To be sure, Barabas does speak to the end of a turning a profit, but wealth is gradually displaced as the exclusive object of his concern; his main object through the latter half of the play seems to be revenge, at any cost, upon the Christians. Then, with his attempt to destroy the Turks and restore the Christians to power, it becomes evident that even revenge is not Barabas’ exclusive object. At the end he seems to be pursuing deception virtually for its own sake. 303

And, as I have argued elsewhere, it is precisely this dark vision, this denial of Being, that haunts all of Marlowe’s plays. 304

Barabas devises falsehoods so eagerly because he is himself a false-hood, a fiction composed of the sleaziest materials in his culture. 304

In celebrating deception, he is celebrating himself—not simply his cunning, his power to impose himself on others, his inventiveness, but his very distance from ontological fullness. Barabas is the Jewish Knight of Non-Being. From this perspective, the language shift, to which I alluded earlier, is a deliberate assault upon that immediacy, that sense of presence, evoked at the beginning in Barabas’ rich poetry with its confident sense of realized identity. 304

Marlowe’s hero is not defined finally by the particular object he pursues but by the eerie playfulness with which he pursues it. 305

The will to play flaunts society’s cherished orthodoxies, embraces what the culture finds loathsome or frightening, transforms the serious into the joke and then unsettles the category of the joke by taking it seriously. For Barabas, as for Marlowe himself, this is play on the brink of an abyss, absolute play. 305

…and with a character who manifests as little interiority as Barabas…306

That he dies in his own trap is no accident, nor is it solely the result of the governor’s superior cunning: his career is in its very essence suicidal. He proclaims that he always wants to serve his own self-interest: “Ego mihimet sun simper proximus” (1.2228); but where exactly is the self whose interests he serves? Even the Latin tag betrays an ominous self-distance: “I am always my own neighbor,” or even, “I am always next to myself.” Beneath the noisy protestations of self-interest, his career is a steady, stealthy dispossession of himself, an extended vanishing, an assault upon the subject. 307