No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
2 T A M B U R L A I N E , M A R L O W E ’ S “ W A R A G A I N S T T H E G O D S ” IAN GASKELL Bishop’s University ^Axcording to their respective prologues, Tamhurlaine, Part One, defines itself in contradiction to works by other writers whereas Part Two defines itself in terms of its predecessor. The distinction is worth noting, for it implies a tension in Marlowe’s dramaturgical conception of the second play, a tension produced by the artistic problem of composing the sequel to a highly successful work. The first play stands alone, original in its conception and revolutionary in its impact. Its powerful language asserts itself as a contrast to the “jigging veins of rhyming mother-wits” (i Tamb. Pro. i) ; its plotted action is engineered to undermine the conventions of its an nounced genre, and its hero is a calculated affront to orthodox ethical assumptions. A subversive abstraction of Marlowe’s imagination, Tamburlaine transcends the limitations of morality patterning, legitimizing himself and his achievements through sovereignty and marriage. The play triumph antly demonstrates its own irreverence, ironically victimizing its audience by frustrating expectation and pointedly celebrating the genius of its writer. Part Two is written in the shadow of its predecessor; it cannot stand alone, for its meaning, its tone, and its impact are shaped by a context of M ar lowe’s own making : The general welcomes Tamhurlaine receiv’d, When he arrived last upon our stage, Have made our poet pen his Second Part. (2 Tamb. Pro. 1-3)1 If, as Leslie Fiedler suggests, “a work of art is on one level about the problems of its own composition” 2 then Tamhurlaine, Part Two, records the struggle of a dramatist trapped by his own success. Marlowe’s approach to his material is marked by two fundamental pre occupations: the problem of maintaining and even surpassing the aesthetic impact of the first play, and the necessity of killing his protagonist. Just as the dramaturgical obsession with rhetorical efficacy emerges as a controlling principle of 1 Tamhurlaine, so these two compositional problems dominate the writing of his “ Second Part.” To complicate the issue these two probE n g l ish Stu d ies in C anada, x i, 2, June 1985 lems are in a sense opposed to each other. In Part One rhetorical exag geration and oratorical skills are used to magnify the hero; his control over the primary mode of representation elevates him above the Active world of the play. But in the second part Tamburlaine’s inevitable death is a pro found limitation, placing him securely within the control of the play-world’s metaphysical order. Consequently, the outrageous hyberboles which form a substantial part of Tamburlaine’s speeches in the sequel suggest, in their straining after an effect comparable to that of Part One, a dramaturgical tension between the continued desire to make Tamburlaine a denial of all limitation and the inescapable necessity of a plot that must kill him. That “Tamburlaine, the scourge of God, must die” is an event ordained at the moment Marlowe decided to write his continuation, and the prologue establishes the primacy of this event in terms of the conceived action: “Where death cuts off the progress of his pomp, / And murderous Fates throw all his triumphs down” (2 Tamb. Pro. 4-5). The admission of neces sity that constitutes Tamburlaine’s final words is on one level the drama turgical recognition of the inevitable conclusion outlined in the prologue, and this “given” termination of Tamburlaine’s career both circumscribes and permeates the action of the play. Marlowe’s flouting of De Casibus convention in Part One is founded on Tamburlaine’s ability to control his own destiny: “ I hold the Fates bound fast in iron chains, / And with my hand turn Fortune’s wheel about” (1 Tamb. i.ii. 174-75). This internal assessment of his own power is supported by a plot which reverses generic expectation. In the second part Tamburlaine’s submission to a higher reality is the Active equivalent of Marlowe’s inability to alter the outcome of...
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.