Friday, October 31, 2025

The Spanish Tragedy and Ur-Hamlet - we do as all tragedians do

I gotta get this train back on the tracks.  Let’s see.  I’ll write this bit about The Spanish Tragedy, then something about the Henry V and Henry VI plays I’ve been reading, then get to Christopher Marlowe’s hilarious farce The Jew of Malta.  Somewhere I will fit in something about Stephen Greenblatt’s new biography of Marlowe which, happily, is excellent.

The crazy revenge scheme of The Spanish Tragedy is famously a play-within-a-play in which three people die of stabbing (Stab himStab him… Stab herself) while the idiot nobility in the audience nod along, thinking it is acting.

HIERONIMO  Haply you think, but bootless are your thoughts,

That this is fabulously counterfeit,

And that we do as all tragedians do  (IV.iv, 117)

Before the scene ends, two more people are stabbed (plus there is the business with the tongue).  It is like a combination of Hamlet’s last scene and its own play-within-a-play.

Which may be what it is, if Thomas Kyd wrote the legendary lost Ur-Hamlet, and if Ur-Hamlet precedes The Spanish Tragedy, in which case Ur-Hamlet invented the revenge tragedy and The Spanish Tragedy is its generic sequel.

Fredson Bowers, writing in Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy: 1587-1642 (1940) is sure both of those things are true.  He for some reason really wants Ur-Hamlet to come first, so it does.  In Chapter III, “The Spanish Tragedy and the Ur-Hamlet,” Bowers provides a detailed, scene-by-scene synopsis of Ur-Hamlet, showing how it led to The Spanish Tragedy and eventually Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

It is a fascinating chapter, mostly because Ur-Hamlet does not exist, in any form.  Two words have survived (“Hamlet, revenge!”, spoken by the ghost).  Bowers just makes the whole thing up.  He takes Shakespeare’s Hamlet and the French novella that is Kyd’s source (probably) and kind of plots a midpoint.

The Spanish Tragedy has no known source, which bothers Bowers.  It would be a rarity for the period if the story during this plundering period were original.  But I am okay with the idea; also the idea that Kyd did not write Ur-Hamlet and that it was written after The Spanish Tragedy.  Brian Vickers has recently led an effort to massively expand the attributions to Kyd – see The Collected Works of Thomas Kyd and the biography Thomas Kyd: A Dramatist Restored, but boy does the evidence look thin to me, very close to nothing in most cases.  The attribution of Ur-Hamlet to Kyd is based on interpreting a pun-filled line by Thomas Nashe.

The literary history of this period is of the highest interest.  Much of the interest is figuring out how we know things.

I’ll give poor, dim, Balthazar the last word.

BALTHAZAR  Hieronimo, methinks a comedy were better.

HIERONONIMO  A comedy?

    Fie, comedies are fit for common wits  (IV.i, 109)

But revenge is too much fun.

4 comments:

  1. Stephen Greenblatt’s new biography of Marlowe which, happily, is excellent

    I'm glad to hear it; from some reviews I'd gotten the impression that he is too credulous of the many rumors about Marlowe's colorful life when he should have stuck to the known facts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have not gotten to Marlowe's murder yet. Still plenty of time for Greenblatt to be credulous, but so far he is not, really not at all. He knows the avavilable evidence as well as anyone.

    There are places where he has to make his choice about what the evidence means; he has been working on Marlowe for more than forty years, so those choices are in a sense his insights. There has also been one place where he resorts to fiction, clearly frustrated by the lack of evidence not about Marlowe but about Shakespeare.

    I will write about the subtle way Greenblatt uses evidence. I will likely write about nothing but his use of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess "credulous" was the wrong word: I didn't mean that he believed them but rather that he couldn't resist passing them along because they were so much more lively than the bare facts. At any rate, I look forward to your further discussion!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wonder what the specific complaints are. I can imagine readers frustrated by his constant refusal to go beyond the bare facts, by which I mean various texts. A literary scholar, he is always interpreting texts. The usual conclusion about this episode or that is some version of "but we don't realy know."

    I hope to write about the book soon and give some examples. Soon soon soon.

    ReplyDelete