Story odepus rex

The People of Thebes gathered at the palace. The steps were crowded by the petitioners. They were delegates. When Oedipus appeared and asked
the priest, the eldest of all there, to speak what they wanted from the king. The priest described that the Thebans were suffering from the plague.
They were dying. Their houses were being destroyed.
Among the mortals, king Oedipus was the wisest man. He had answered the riddle of the Sphinx and saved Thebes before it could be destroyed. They
believed that he could save them again from the plague by finding some ways. Oedipus answered them that he had sent Creon to Delphi to visit
Apollo for instruction of getting rid of the plague. Creon entered and reported that the god commanded them to expel an old defilement from the
land of Thebes. The murderer of king Laius was to be exiled or executed. The murder had taken place before Oedipus answered the Sphinx and
became the king. They were obstacle in further investigation of the murder by the trouble created by the riddle of the Sphinx. The priest and other
suppliants were convinced by Oedipus that he would take right action to search the murderer and do whatever would be right for the welfare of the
citizens.
Oedipus declared that the old defilement must be driven out of the house where he was being sheltered. He must be discovered by the citizen
whoever was giving him shelter. He also cursed him by praying the god that the man's life be consumed in evil and wretchedness. He determined that
the case of the murder of King Laius would be further investigated by him in his own interest. Choragos suggested him to summon the skilled
Teiresias, the prophet, to discover the murderer. The blind seer Teiresias entered being led by a page. Oedipus urged him to help in the time of
distress. Teiresias refused to tell the truth because he believed that the truth would be more dreadful than the present condition of the suffering.
Oedipus was enraged by the words, refusal and the behavior of the prophet. He accused the prophet of killing the king with his own hands. Then,
Teiresias spoke in anger that Oedipus himself was the pollution of the country. Oedipus charged him with the count of murder of king Laius with the
help of Creon. They were making a plot against the kingship and against the kingdom. Oedipus reasoned that Teiresias was not skillful prophet; he
had no skill of prophecy; otherwise he would have himself helped the Thebans by answering the riddle of the Sphinx. Teiresias responded him that
Oedipus, with both his eyes, was blind. He could not see the wretchedness of his life. He didn't know in whose house he lived, with whom lived and
who were his father and mother. He said that he would learn the echo of Cithaeron (Kithairon) and of bridal-descent of his. Oedipus commanded him
to leave the place. He did not like to hear any more of the babbling. Before departure, Teiresias said that Oedipus would become a blind man, though
he had now his eyes. He would become a penniless man who was now rich. He would go tapping the strange earth with his staff. To the children with
whom he lived now he would be brother and father- the very same; to her who bore him, son and husband- the very same. He asked Oedipus to think
over his statements, and if he would find any error, he could say that the prophet had no skill in prophecy.
There was a hot argument between Oedipus and Creon later in the palace. Oedipus charged him for the conspiracy, but Creon reasoned out that he
had never intended to be the King. Jocasta (lokasta) interrupted their dispute and convinced that Creon was telling the truth. The king could believe
on him without doubt. When Creon left the place. Oedipus and Jocasta both debated on the question of soothsayers. She said that an oracle was
reported to Laius once that his doom would be death at the hands of his own son, born of his flesh and of hers. The king Laius was killed at a place
where three highways met. The baby with whom there was fear of death was already left on the hills of Cithaeron (Kithairon) where it was supposed
to be dead. Oedipus recollected the dim memory of an event in which he was himself involved. He said that his father was Polybus of Corinth and
mother was Merope. A drunken man declared that Oedipus was not a child of the king and queen. Though his parents (foster-parents) convinced him
that they were really his father and mother, he had still some doubt. He went to the shrine of Apollo, where he heard a dreadful oracle that he would
lie with his own mother, and beget children and that he would be the murderer of his father. With fear he left Corinth forever. One day, while he was
wandering, he came to a place where three highways met. There he encountered with an old man on a chariot. There was a herald, too. As the herald
drove Oedipus off the road, he was quite angry. There was a fight. Oedipus killed them. Then, he came to Thebes, where he answered the Sphinx and
freed the city from its danger. He became king. The queen told her that a shepherd had escaped from a fight. He came back to the country. When he
saw Oedipus enthroned in the place of the old king, he requested to send him away to the border where only shepherd used to go. His wish was
granted. Oedipus intended to meet the shepherd to know whether there was one murderer or many. The shepherd had said that there were many.
Oedipus wanted to get to the truth. Oedipus was quite disturbed.
Jocasta prayed to the god to have mercy on the King, to give him peace of mind. Meanwhile, a messenger from Corinth came with a news that King
Polybus was dead. He was dead of sickness. Oedipus was assured that the oracle proved wrong in this case. Oedipus was still worried of his mother,
Merope who was still alive. With a good meaning, the messenger declared the truth that King Polybus and Queen Merope were not his parents. The
messenger had himself given the baby Oedipus to them from his own hand. He had taken the baby from the shepherd of King Laius. The baby's feet
were pinned with a skewer. Oedipus said that the mark of the wound was still there on his feet. As the parental identity was not still cleared, he
wished to meet the shepherd. The shepherd was brought to the palace. He was questioned, and being obliged by the King, he declared that it was the
King Laius, who had given him the baby to leave on the hills of Cithaeron (Kithairon). The queen had herself given it to him because of the cursed
oracle. When the truth is discovered, Jocasta makes her suicide. Oedipus blinds himself and asks for exile. He requests Creon to take care of his
daughters. He was not worried of the sons because they could manage to live somehow because they were men. Thus, the King, who solved the
famous riddle and towered up only to fall into ruin.

MARLOWE: MORE A POET THAN A DRAMATIST IN

THE LIGHT OF “DOCTOR FAUSTUS”
Introduction
 Critics and admirers of Marlowe through ages have recognised Marlowe as
one of the greatest poets of English literature. According to some, Marlowe’s
name would stand high among the great English poets even if he had never
written a single poem and many others opine that Marlowe was first a poet
and afterwards a dramatist. Marlowe’s poetic excellence was highly
appreciated even by his contemporaries. The following lines of eulogy
expresses Drayton’s highest admiration for Marlowe’s poetry:
“Neat Marlowe, bathed in the Thispian Springs,
Had in him those brave translunary things
That your first poets had; his raptures were
All air and fire, which made his verses clear:
For that fine madness still he did retain.
Which rightly should possess a poet’s brain.
This is how Swinburne pays his tribute: “The first great English poet was the
father of English tragedy and the creator of English blank verse.” And,
Saintsbury of our age says of him in his Elizabethan literature: “Marlowe one
of the greatest poets of the world whose work was cast by accident and caprice
into an imperfect mould of drama.”
The romantic quality and the lyrical simplicity of his great pastoral, The
Passionate Shepherd to His Love, and the wealth of imagination revealed in
his unfinished narrative poem, Hero and Leader, go a long way to establish
Marlowe’s claim as one of the purest and greatest poets of England for all
time. The former got a place in English Helican in the year 1600 and the latter
has been held by many critics—one of them of Boas—as superior to
Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis for its freshness ‘and winding beauty of
melody.’
So Bradley, in his considered opinion has nicely remarked: “Marlowe had
many of the makings of a great poet—a capacity for titanic conceptions which
might with time have become Olympian; an imaginative vision which was
already intense and must have deepened and widened; the gift of style and
making words sin…. a time to live in such as no other generation of English
poets known.” Alas! Marlowe’s genius could not blossom to its full glory as his
life was cut short by the sharp dagger of a cruel assassin.
Introduction of Poetry into Drama
Marlowe might essentially have been a poet and a great poet too, but it was
he who was the first great English poet to make use of drama as a medium of
poetic expression. Harold Osborne is just in his estimate when he says:
“Marlowe’s greatest achievement was the introduction of poetry into the
English drama. He is first and foremost the lyricist of the English stage.” We
may rightly say that Marlowe poetised the English Drama or fused together
the lyric and the dramatic elements of his contemporaries. Hence we find all
the tragic heroes of Marlowe are as much poets as Marlowe himself. And if
imagination and passion are the essential ingredients of poetry then all his
heroes are undoubtedly inspired poets who express their passion and
imagination in superb poetical language. In spite of all hard-hearted cruelty of
a Tartar, Tamburlaine is also endowed with a poet’s sentiments. This is
wonderfully revealed in his lyrical outburst while praising the loveliness of
Zenocrate:
“Zenocrate lovelier than the lover of Jove,
Brighter than is the silver Rhodope,
Fairer than whitest snow on Scythian hills,
Thy person is more worth to Tamburlaine
Than the possession of the Persian crown,
Which gracious stars have promised at my birth.”
And of all Marlowe’s heroes, Faustus is the most poetic, as he is a prototype
of Marlowe himself with his passionate love of beauty and yearning for
sensuous pleasures. According to Nicoll, “Marlowe is the poet of passion par
excellence, and nowhere does he show his genius for high astounding phrases
so much as he does when he is speaking of the rapture of beauty.” And the
ecstatic quality, the vitalising energy of Marlowe’s poetical genius is
magnificently revealed in Faustus’s oft quoted apostrophe on Helen:
“Was this the face that launched a thousand ships,
And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?
Sweet Helen make me immortal with a kiss.
…………………………………………………..
O, thou art fairer than the evening air
Clad in the beauty of thousand stars:
Brighter art thou than flaming Jupiter
When he appeared to hapless Semele:
More lovely than the monarch of the sky
In Wanton Arethusa’s azur’d arms:
And none but thou shall be my paramour.”
Wynne’s comment on this passage is worth noting:
“This passage has probably never been surpassed in its magical
idealisation, of that which is essentially base and carnal.”
Here is another passage in which Faustus expresses in glowing terms the
great delights that his magic has offered him:
“Have not I made blind Homer sing to me
Of Alexander’s love and Oenon’s death?
And hath not he, that built the walls of Thebe
With ravishing sound of his melodious harp,
Made music with my Mephistophilis?”
Then the poignant soliloquy of Faustus in the final scene is probably the most
poetic in fancy and stirring in expression. It is also extremely dramatic in its
effect. Such memorable passages in Marlowe’s tragedies, specially in Doctor
Faustus with its rich phrasing and the sonorous music of words, with its
judicious use of myth and legend that contributes to the music and melody of
his verse, with its bright and lucid simplicity free from the rhetorical
declamation and a vain display of learning, establishes Marlowe’s claim to be
the first and foremost ‘lyricist of the English stage.’ And Nicoll has rightly
remarked: “Marlowe seeks to conquer the impossible in drama, to find the
complete expression for all his hopes and desires, and he can put that same
passion into the ambition for earthly dominion, for power over the intangible,
for limitless revenge.” It must be remembered that in Marlowe’s dramas
poetry is an essential ingredient that impregnates the play and gives it its
substance, quality and character.
Marlowe and Blank Verse
Marlowe may not be credited as the pioneer for introducing blank verse to
drama for the first time. That credit rightly goes to Sackville and Norton, the
co-authors of Gorboduc, the first tragedy in the domain of British drama. But
if we compare the blank verse of Gorboduc with that of Marlowe’s dramas we
find how artificial, unformed and monotonous it was. From the very beginning
of his literary career Marlowe was quite conscious of his great role as a poet as
well as a dramatist. That is why we find his bold assertion in the Prologue to
Tamburlaine:
“From jigging veins of rhyming mother wits,
And such conceits as clownage keeps in pay,
We’ll lead you to the stately tent of war.”
And Marlowe’s genius worked wonders; at one stroke he freed it from
formalism, regularity and conventional restrains. The blank verse of Gorboduc
with its end-stopped lines and regular beats was extremely monotonous,
wooden and mechanical. In its place, Marlowe introduced run-on lines, varied
the accents here and there and shifted the caesura—that is pause about the
middle of line—to suit the sense and the subject. He also introduced feet other
than iambic ones and created a wonderful rhythm of extreme flexibility and
power. Credit must go to Marlowe for perfecting the blank verse to a great
extent and giving it amazing force, variety and rhythm; and the magnificent
poetic flights in his dramas, specially in Doctor Faustus, were possible for
Marlowe because he could evolve this suitable medium, the blank verse, and
develop it on right lines to serve the purpose of his poetical as well as dramatic
genius. What Marlowe achieved for blank verse can be best illustrated by
quoting below two passages—one from Gorboduc and the other from Doctor
Faustus. Below is one from Gorboduc:
“O hard and cruel hap, that thus assigned
Unto so worthy a wight so wretched end:
But most cruel heart that could content
To lend the hateful destinies that hand
By which, alas, so heinous crime was wrought.”
Now the following lines from the most poignant soliloquy of Doctor
Faustus in the closing scene reveal to us to what great heights did Marlowe
carry the blank verse as a medium for dramatic expression with its poetic and
passionate, yet genuinely spontaneous language and the sonorous music of
words:
The stars move still, time runs, the clock will strike
The devil will come and Faustus must be damned,
O’ I’ll leap to my God: who pulls me down?
See, see, where Christ’s blood streams in the firmament!
One drop would save my soul, half a drop: ah my Christ!
So Wynne is correct in his observation when he says:
“He was the first to demonstrate that imagination could not madly in a
wealth of imagery, or soar far above the realms of logic or cold philosophy to
summon beautiful and terrible pictures out of the cloud and of fancy, without
losing hold upon earth and language of mortals. He knew that the unspoken
language of the impassioned heart is charged with poetry.”
Conclusion: The Dramatist and the Poet
It is beyond dispute that Marlowe’s contribution to the Elizabethan drama
was great and manifold and that he was Shakespeare’s greatest predecessor
and also showed the way to Shakespeare. It was he who wrote the first great
tragedy or tragedy of the soul displaying the most acute spiritual and
emotional conflict paving the way for Shakespeare. But Marlowe as a pioneer
had to make his path for himself. His career was cut short by the dagger of a
cruel assassin. So as, a dramatist he could not perfect or fully develop his
dramatic technique. Critic after critics has pointed out some serious
drawbacks in his plays. And the most serious of them is that he neglected both
plot and character which are the most important elements that make a play.
All his dramas except Edward II, is very much deficient in the art of plot
construction. Even his greatest tragedy, Doctor Faustus, seems to be a series
of loose connected heterogenous scenes. Then his heroes ‘are lonely figures in
a world of Lilliputians.’ His minor characters pale into insignificance before
the towering heroes without having much scope in the development of the
drama. Besides these, his dramas reveal some minor defects also such as
absence of real women characters, lack of proper comic relief and some others.
As regards Marlowe’s poetic genius almost all the critics are one in their
opinion. None would dispute that Marlowe was superb and masterly in the use
of blank verse and by perfecting which Shakespeare became so famous.
Wynne’s view of Marlowe as a poet and a dramatist is quite comprehensive
when he remarks: “Marlowe masters us by his poetry, and is lifted by it above
his fellows reaching the pedestal on which Shakespeare stands alone. Marlowe
is no doubt the rapturous lyricist of limitless desire whereas Shakespeare is
the majestic spokesman of inexorable moral law. It has been said indeed, that
Marlowe is too poetical for a dramatist, but a very little consideration of the
plays of Shakespeare will tell us how much the great dramatic productions owe
to poetry……Into indifferent material, poetry can breathe that quickening,
flame without which the most dramatic situations fail to satisfy. Marlowe had
a supreme gift of creating moments, sometimes extended to whole scenes; he
had to learn, from repeated failures the art of creating plays.”

“DOCTOR FAUSTUS”: A LINK BETWEEN MORALITY AND DRAMA

Introduction
Marlowe has rightly been called the ‘Morning Star’ of the great Elizabethan
drama. Among the first pioneers of Elizabethan drama, he was definitely the
greatest. Undoubtedly, it was Marlowe who raised the matter and the manner
of the English drama to a high level and set it firmly on the straight road to
greatness by drawing it from the old rut of Morality and rambling Interlude.
So Marlowe’s contribution to the evolving of Romantic drama was really great. But the
fact is that the Romantic drama was a curious blend of indigenous and classical
traditions. Hence some of the characteristics of medieval Miracle and Morality plays are
quite evident in the plays of Marlowe. And in this respect Doctor Faustus may be
treated as a connecting link between the Miracle and Morality plays and the
illustrious drama of Elizabethan period.

Miracle and Mystery Plays and “Doctor Faustus”

The English dramas of the Middle Ages which presented the miracle of the
saints and, very often, scenes from the Bible were generally and correctly,
called Miracle plays. Scholars, from time to time, have attempted to
distinguish between the Miracle play and the Mystery—the former as the
saints-play and the latter as the Bible play. But both terms are still used for
both types with very little discrimination. The production of these plays was at
its height in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Saints-plays were earlier
than Biblical plays. Those who wrote and produced them called them
Miracles, shows or pageants. There is no doubt that the chief purpose of these
plays was religious and ethical teaching, but between the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries, these plays, which developed from liturgical dramas
became secularised. In such plays, generally a large number of scenes
depicting the life of a saint was stringed together and the structure was always
loose. But in the process of secularisation, comic scenes with coarse
buffoonery found their place. The story of the plays was confined to the two
books of the Bible. The Devil had also its part to play, though the plot, if there
was any, centered round the main character allowing very little scope to minor
figures.
In Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus we can easily trace some of the characteristics
of the Miracle plays. In Scene IV of Act I we find two devils, Baliol and
Belcher, entering just to frighten the clown. Devils also appear in Act II, Sc. I
and II and also in Act IV, Sc. Ill and Act V, Sc. II. The tradition of Chorus is
also maintained. We find the Chorus introducing the story just before the
beginning of the first scene and subsequently filling in the gaps in the
narrative and announcing the end of the play with a very solemn moral. The
looseness of the structure is quite evident, and as in the Miracle plays the story
centres around a single towering figure, Doctor Faustus. From the very name
of this type of plays it is obvious that the main figures must have performed
some outstanding miracles. And here in this drama we find Faustus
performing amazing feats of Miracle.
Morality Plays and “Doctor Faustus”
The Morality play is really a fusion of the medieval allegory and the
religious drama, of the Miracle plays. It developed at the end of the fourteenth
century and gained much popularity in the fifteenth century. In these plays the
characters were personified abstractions of vice or virtues such as Good
Deeds, Faith, Mercy, Anger. The outstanding Morality play, Everyman, has
characters like Wealth, Good Deeds, Death and others. The general theme of
the Moralities was theological and the main one was the struggle between
good and evil powers for capturing man’s soul and the journey of life with its
choice of eternal destinations. Very often the Seven Deadly Sins were found
engaged in physical and verbal battle with cardinal virtues. Even though the
Morality plays were essentially religious or ethical and didactic, they were also
not dull like the Miracle plays. The antics of vices and devils etc., offered a
considerable opportunity for low comedy or buffoonery and thus farcical
elements developed in a great way.
The Morality play, more or less, disappeared after mid-fifteenth century
but the trace of its influences appears in Elizabethan drama. In this respect we
may call Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus a belated Morality in spite of its tragic
ending. And even Shakespeare’s Macbeth is not free from its influence as this
play also presents a conflict between the good and the evil.
“Doctor Faustus”
Let us take up Doctor Faustus exclusively. If the general theme of Morality
plays was theological dealing with the struggle of the forces of good and evil
for the soul of man, and the aim was to teach doctrines and ethics of
Christianity, then Doctor Faustus may be called a religious or Morality play to
a very great extent. The play definitely worked out in a tone of medieval
theology. We find Marlowe’s hero, Faustus, abjuring the scriptures, the Trinity
and Christ. He surrenders his soul to the Devil out of his inordinate ambition
to gain superhuman power through knowledge by mastering the unholy art of
magic. And thus he says to himself to make up his mind regarding the subject
he wishes to study in future:
“Divinity adieu!
These metaphysics of magicians,
And necromantic books are heavenly.”
By selling his soul to the Devil he lives a blasphemous life full of vain and
sensual pleasures just for twenty-four years. He does not shirk from insulting
and even assaulting the Pope with the Holy Fathers at Rome. Of course, there
is a fierce struggle in his soul between his over-weening ambition and
conscience, between the Good Angel and Evil Angel that externalise the inner
conflict. But Faustus ultimately surrenders to the allurements of the Evil
Angel, thereby paving his way for eternal damnation. And what does happen
to this great egotist as well as agonistic with his craze for limitless power and
pelf, with his inordinate ambition to unravel all the mysteries of the universe?
When the final hour approaches, Faustus, to his utmost pain and horror,
realises that his sins are unpardonable and nothing can save him from eternal
damnation. And before the devils snatch away his soul to burning hell, the
excruciating pangs of a deeply agonised soul find the most poignant
expression in Faustus’s final soliloquy:
“My God, my God, look not so fierce to me!
Adders and serpents, let me breath a while!
Ugly hell, gape not: come not Lucifer:
I’ll burn my books: Ah, Mephistophilis!”
Thus we find Marlowe in keeping with the traditions of Miracles and
Moralities, depicts the destiny of a man who denies God to be finally doomed
to eternal damnation.
Moral Sermon or Didactic Aim
The chief aim of Morality plays was didactic—it was a dramatized guide to
Christian living and Christian dying. Whoever discards the path of virtue and
abjures faith in God and Christ is destined to despair and eternal damnation—
this is also the message of Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus. And it has found the
most touching expression in the mournful monody of the Chorus in the
closing lines of the play:
“Cut is the branch that might have grown full straight,
And burned is Apollo’s laurel-bough,
That sometimes grew within this learned man.
Faustus is gone; regard his hellish fall.
Whose fiendful fortune may exhort the wise.
Only to wonder at unlawful things,
Whose deepness doth entice such forward wits
To practise more than heavenly power permits”
 Hudson has rightly said: “No finer sermon than Marlowe’s Faustus ever
came from the pulpit. What more fearsome exposure was ever offered of the
punishment man brings upon himself by giving way to temptation of his
grosser appetites.”
Allegory or Personified Abstractions
It has already been mentioned that in Morality plays the characters were
allegorical—they were personified abstractions of vice or virtues. So in Doctor
Faustus also we find the Good and Evil Angels, the former standing for the
path of virtue and the latter for sin and damnation. Then we have the Old Man
appearing in Scene I (Act V) “to guide thy steps unto the way of life.”—
symbolising the forces of righteousness and morality. The Seven Deadly Sins
of good old Mystery and Morality plays are also very much there in a grand
spectacle to cheer up the despairing soul of Faustus. And the old favourite and
familiar figure of the devil is also not missing. Mephistophilis, an assistant if
Lucifer, appears as servile slave of Faustus in many scenes in the guise of a
Fransiscan Friar symbolising power without conscience. But Marlowe’s Devil
is a devil with difference, as he has been endowed with some original traits.
Comic Element
The comic scenes of Doctor Faustus also belong to the tradition of old
Miracle and Morality plays. The comic scenes with its buffoonery were not
integral parts of those plays but were introduced to entertain and to raise
hoars-laughter, as in the case of a realistic comic scene where Noah was shown
beating his wife for refusing to enter the ark. The same is the case with almost
all the five comic scenes in Doctor Faustus—especially in Scene I of the third
Act where Faustus is found playing vile tricks on the Pope and the IInd scene
of Act IV where the horse-courser is totally outwitted and befooled by Faustus.
Other Elements
In the earlier plays there is no inter-play of character. In Doctor Faustus,
also there is only one towering central figure and all the action and incidents
centre round him. Then, just like the earlier Miracle or Morality plays, it also
suffers from looseness of construction—specially in the middle part of the
play.
Conclusion
In spite of all its links with medieval Miracles or Moralities, Doctor Faustus
can never be treated wholly as a Morality play. It is the greatest heroic tragedy
before Shakespeare with its enormous stress on characterisation and inner
conflict in the soul of a towering personality. We may conclude in the words of
a critic: Doctor Faustus is both the consummation of the English Morality
tradition and the last and the finest of Marlowe’s heroic plays. As a Morality, it
vindicates humility, faith and obedience to the law of God; as an heroic play it
celebrates power, beauty, riches and knowledge, and seems a sequel to the
plays of “Tamburlaine the great.”
MARLOWE AND SHAKESPEARE: THE WRITERS OF TRAGEDY
Introduction: Influence of Marlowe
There is hardly anyone who will dispute Shakespeare’s great indebtedness of
Marlowe, ‘the Morning Star of English drama.’ It was Marlowe, more than any other,
who performed the great task of drawing English drama from the old rut of Morality and
rambling Interlude. And it was also Marlowe who broke new ground and paved the way
for Elizabethan dramatists and the genius of Shakespeare.
Marlowe’s work and achievement guided and inspired Shakespeare. And J.A. Symonds
justly remarks: “What Shakespeare would have been without Marlowe, cannot even be
surmised. What alone is obvious to every student is that Shakespeare designed from the
first to tread in Marlowe’s footsteps, that Shakespeare at the last completed and
developed to the utmost that national embryo of art which Marlowe drew forth from the
womb of darkness, anarchy and incoherence.”

It is quite evident that in the beginning of his career Marlowe’s influence on

Shakespeare was quite considerable. Shakespeare’s Richard II, Richard III and
Merchant of Venice reveal notable similarity to Marlowe’s Edward II and the Jew of
Malta. Shakespeare must have remembered Barabas of the Jew of Malta while creating
the unforgettable character of Shylock the Jew. He also must have remembered
Marlowe’s Hero and Leander as he quoted that famous line: “Whoever loved that loved
not at first sight?” in his As You Like It. And it was really a great tribute from
Shakespeare to Marlowe when he addressed him as ‘Dead Shepherd.’ As regards
Shakespeare’s Richard II it can be proved from internal evidence that the above play is
modelled on Edward II or Marlowe.
Blank Verse
One of the greatest contributions of Marlowe to Elizabethan drama was his blank
verse. At one stroke Marlowe’s genius freed the blank verse of his predecessors from the
fetters of formalism, regularity and conventional restrictions and thus paved the way for
Shakespeare. So it was Marlowe who first gave British drama a powerful medium of
expression through the ‘Mighty line’ of his flexible blank verse and left it for
Shakespeare’s inimitable genius to purify, to perfect and ‘to play upon its hundred
stops.’
Difference in Personality and Genius
The comparison and their influence upon each other may not be taken too far, as
both Marlowe and Shakespeare differ greatly from each other in their personality,
mental make-up as well as in their genius. Marlowe was one of the great University Wits
with his wide scholarship and classical learning. He was greatly influenced by the
Renaissance spirit and the ideas of Machiavelli. In personal life he was Bohemian and
boisterous. On the contrary, Shakespeare was ‘self-schooled, self-sensed, self-secured.’
He was very little affected by the current ideals and philosophic ideas of the time. So it
was his personal observation and experience that helped him to understand human
nature and the objective world of reality. Shakespeare’s vision was never coloured like
that of Marlowe. Keeping all these in view we may now take up the different aspects of
their drama and make an attempt to compare Marlowe and Shakespeare as the writers
of tragedy.
Tragic Hero and Characterisation
After a close and critical study of Marlowe’s dramas we are convinced that his true
conception of tragic hero alongwith his art of characterisation was of greatest
significance for the development of drama on right lines. It was he who was the first
playwright in England to realise that tragic action must issue from and be reflected in
character. In fact, before Marlowe there was no hero in the conventional sense in the
pre-Elizabethan days. The first similarity that strikes us is that both Marlowe and
Shakespeare created their tragic heroes mainly following the Aristotelian conception of a
tragic hero. Thus, we find that Shakespeare’s tragic heroes, like those of Marlovian
heroes have some inherent tragic flaw in their character—the flaw that ultimately brings
about their fall. Like Marlowe’s Tamburlaine, Faustus, Barabas and Edward II,
Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Macbeth and Lear also have their inherent defects that brings
about their fall, and the fall also produces mingled feelings of pity and fear. But there is
some basic difference also. Shakespeare by introducing the device of the supernatural
deepens the sense of mystery, e.g. the witches in Macbeth or the ghosts in Hamlet. But
in the case of Marlowe’s tragedies there are no such mysteries and one can easily follow
the course of events and foresee the tragic doom without any difficulty. Another point of
difference is that unlike Shakespeare’s heroes, Marlowe’s heroes are the reflection of his
personality. Marlowe projected himself into his titanic heroes. But Shakespeare’s art
was the art of self-effacement.
Characterisation
As regards characterisation Marlowe exercised very little influence on Shakespeare.
But the depiction of internal or spiritual conflict in the mind of the hero, as we find in
the case of Doctor Faustus, profoundly influenced Elizabethan drama. In the art of
characterisation, Shakespeare was much more superior to Marlowe. His Hamlet and
Macbeth are far more well-delineated characters than those of Marlowe. And then there
is almost a complete dearth of secondary characters like Horatio, Banquo or Kent to
stand as a foil to the central figure of the drama. And Allardyce Nicoll is quite just in his
remark, when he says: “All his heroes by their greatness stand alone.” Then excepting a
few sketchy or shadowy figures we hardly come across real female characters in
Marlowe’s tragedies. But from Shakespeare we get a galaxy of great women—Cleopatra,
Desdemona, Lady Macbeth and others. The genius of Shakespeare could create a variety
of characters representing all walks of life, even a porter or an interesting grave digger.
Structure and Element of Humour
As far as plot construction is concerned all Marlowe’s great plays, with the exception
of Edward II to some extent, suffer from great technical defects. In his plays the heroes
tower so much above the minor characters that they pale into insignificance. And then
there are no sub-plots in Marlovian dramas to intensify or enrich the meaning of the
main plot by way of sharp contrast or close affinity. In three of his great tragedies we
find a single track of development of the plot and hence there is no scope for revealing
life in its different shades, in its motley colours. Nicoll has rightly remarked: “In
structure, we see that all Marlowe’s plays are faulty… Tamburlaine has no unity except
such as lies in the presence of the hero; Doctor Faustus is largely a collection of
heterogeneous scenes, loosely pinned together, The Jew of Malta opens well, but sinks
into mediocrity toward the middle and the close.”
Comic Scenes
Then, in general comic scenes in Marlowe’s tragedies, specially in Doctor Faustus,
have very little warmth or genuine humour; they never form a part of the organic whole.
Such scenes of Marlowe hardly bring any comic relief in his tense and very serious
tragedies. Such scenes are generally very low and cheap, often full of puerile pranks and
coarse buffoonery. Hence, some of the eminent critics opine that they are interpolations
and not from the pen of a genius like Marlowe. Any way it seems Marlowe badly lacked
in the divine gift of humour. Shakespeare possessed this gift of humour. Hence, from his
pen we get wonderful examples of comic relief in the porter scene in Macbeth or the
grave-digger scene in Hamlet.
F.S. Boas has given us a very illuminating passage comparing Shakespeare and his
great predecessors as writers of tragedy and we may conclude by quoting his famous
lines:
“Christopher Marlowe is one of the most fascinating figures in our own, or indeed, in
any literature. In the temple of poetic fame the highest places are sacred to genius that
has mounted securely to its meridian splendour, to Homer, Dante and Shakespeare. But
seats only lower than these, and hallowed with perhaps richer offerings of human
sympathy and love, are granted to genius dead ere its time, cut down in the freshness of
its morning radiance. It is here that Marlowe is to be sought, side by side with Collins
and Shelley and Keats. What the world has lost by the untimely close of his career we
cannot know; but we do know that, even had he lived, he could never have been ‘another
Shakespeare.’ For nature so lavish to him in other ways, had entirely withheld from him
the priceless gift of humour, and the faculty of interpreting commonplace human
experience. He never learnt the secrets of woman’s heart, and he knew of no love lifted
above the level of sense. Between him and his mighty successor there is, and there must
always have been, an impassable gulf. Marlowe is the rapturous lyricist of limitless
desire, Shakespeare the majestic spokesman of inexpressible moral law.”