Please join me this fall in reading the plays of Christopher Marlowe and some of his contemporaries, if that sounds enjoyable to you. The more I have thought about it, the more enjoyable it sounds to me. I have many questions.
Below is an attempt at a schedule, with a play every two
weeks, slower than when we read all of the Greek plays. In September, though, I will blow through
some early plays the precede the commercial London theater. They are a bit shorter and frankly I doubt
that anyone else will want to read them, so let’s get on to Marlowe, right? Marlowe is outstanding.
I hope to put up a post every Monday (the dates below), with the alternating
posts about some related topic: another play, perhaps even one by Shakespeare,
or poetry, or criticism, or even in theory a performance although that does not
seem likely.
I think of these works more as poems than as plays; this
will mostly be an exercise in poetics and literary history. But there is no reason anyone else has to
read along for that.
Early
Precursors |
|||
Sep. 1 |
1552 |
Ralph
Roister Doister |
Nicholas
Udall |
Sep. 8 |
1553 |
Gammer
Gurton's Needle |
authorship
much disputed |
Sep. 15 |
1561 |
Gorbuduc |
Thomas Norton
& Thomas Sackville |
Marlowe
& Co. |
|||
Sep. 29 |
1587 |
Dido,
Queen of Carthage |
Christopher
Marlowe |
Oct. 6 |
1587 |
Tamburlaine,
Parts I & II |
Christopher
Marlowe |
Oct. 20 |
1587 |
The
Spanish Tragedy |
Thomas Kyd |
Nov. 3 |
1589 |
The Jew of
Malta |
Christopher
Marlowe |
Nov. 17 |
1591 |
Arden of
Faversham |
??? |
Dec. 1 |
1592 |
Doctor
Faustus |
Christopher
Marlowe |
Dec. 15 |
1592 |
Edward the
Second |
Christopher
Marlowe |
Dec. 29 |
1593 |
The
Massacre at Paris |
Christopher
Marlowe |
The years are all from the chronological table in the back of The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama, 1990, eds. A. R. Braunmuller and Michael Hattaway. Most of these years are marked with an asterisk meaning “best guess” so please use them skeptically. The year of The Spanish Tragedy is especially convenient – plausible but convenient – because paired up with Tamburlaine it creates a handy Year When Everything Changed, a concentrated explosion of theatrical innovation. But maybe it did not happen.
The first London commercial theater (The Theatre) opened in
1576, the next few in 1577. One of my puzzles
is what happened in the ten years before the Tamburlaine / Spanish
Tragedy revolution. Barely more than
a dozen plays survive from that period, a number of them closet dramas, not
written for performance. What the heck
was on those stages?
Some of what else was going on:
1580s |
Astrophel
and Stella |
Philip Sidney |
|
An Apology
for Poetry |
Philip Sidney |
|
Caelica |
Fulke
Greville |
1590 |
Henry VI,
parts 1 to 3 |
William
Shakespeare, et. al. |
|
The Two
Gentlemen of Verona |
William
Shakespeare |
|
The Faerie
Queene I-III |
Edmund
Spenser |
1591 |
The Taming
of the Shrew |
William
Shakespeare |
|
The Comedy
of Errors |
William
Shakespeare |
|
Richard
III |
William
Shakespeare |
|
Titus
Andronicus |
William
Shakespeare |
|
Complaints |
Edmund
Spenser |
|
Summer's
Last Will and Testament |
Thomas Nashe |
1592 |
Delia and
the Complaint of Roasmund |
Sanuel Daniel |
|
Pierce
Penniless |
Thomas Nashe |
1593 |
Idea: The
Shepherd's Garland |
Michael
Drayton |
|
Venus and
Adonis |
William
Shakespeare |
|
Hero and
Leander |
Christopher
Marlowe |
|
The
Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia |
Philip Sidney |
The sonnet craze – Sidney, Greville, Daniel, Drayton – is at
its peak. Lots of great poetry of all
types, really, but oh so many sonnets.
Then there is the upstart, catching up with Marlowe fast. I remind myself that Shakespeare was two
months younger than Marlowe. The theaters
are closed because of the plague in 1592, which is why Shakespeare and possibly
Marlowe switched from plays to best-selling narrative poems (although Hero and
Leander was not published until 1598).
Please feel free to offer corrections, major or minor
omissions, or really any comment at all.
I have read a lot of this stuff before but have no other expertise.
In December I will think about what happens next. But in the meantime let’s have some laughs
with the hilarious comedies of Marlowe and pals. The title quotation is from, where else, The
Jew of Malta, Act 4, Scene 1.
I am interested most in Doctor Faustus, but I warn you ahead of time, I’m not so good with reading plays or poetry. Still, what is having a book blog, sharing literature, if not growth beyond one’s usual boundaries?
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to read just one, that is probably the one.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, that these are not necessarily the easiest reading. Still, 80 pages or so.
I'm still sad that your Not Shakespeare read-along doesn't include Webster and The Revenger's Tragedy (though of course they're later).
ReplyDeleteThe only Marlowe play I'm interested in reading is Edward II, so I might join you for that.
Sounds fun! Don't know if I can join, but I will follow.
ReplyDeleteMaybe next spring for The Revenger's Tragedy? If the pace is similar. Who knows.
ReplyDeleteYes, Edward II, don't miss it. You get to see Marlowe influenced by Shakespeare, Marlowe getting in on the English history craze that was becoming Shakespeare's specialty.
Jeanne, I hope to learn a lot. I want to keep the companies and theaters straight, for example, which I did not do last time I read these plays. Try to get some a better sense of what this world was like.
which version of faustus? and the jew of malta was rewritten decades after marlowe "died" so 1589 isn't a useful date. you should really use the date of publication of the version you're referring to.
ReplyDeleteNo, no, highly useful,. The most useful. The version of Faustus is the first performance or perhaps circulating text of the play. We no longer have this text, but that is a problem for later.
ReplyDeleteIf you think the list in this post violates your rules, take a look at this one. Think how useful it would have been to use the date of publication!
what are you talking about, we have 2 versions of Faustus, 1604 and 1616, and I'm asking which version you're reading in this project. do you think giving the presumed date of first performance explains which version you're reading?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you read your comment, but it looks like the two sentences address the same point, a dispute about what kind of dating is "useful." If the points are distinct, more words ("Which version of Faustus are you reading? I think the 1616 is better.") and then a paragraph break would be useful.
ReplyDeleteSo that is what I am talking about. It looked to me like your first question was another part of the later "should."
As for which version I will read, my Penguin edition of Marlowe "reluctantly" (p. 261) has the 1616 with annotations about the differences from the 1604.
I am completely in favor of anonymous commenting, but as a courtesy could you include a name or nickname as a tag, for continuity across comments? Although if you always write in this tone I suppose I will recognize you.
yes "useful" in terms of identifying the version of the plays you're referring to. they have known publication dates and that's all. some have more than one version with different publication dates. some were rewritten decades after the presumed first performance date you're using. if you read jew of malta thinking it was written in 1589 you might wonder how it's possible it bears so much resemblance to things written decades later. the date you've superimposed is wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut I have no interest in identifying the version of the play here. We can get to that as we read each play. The Chronological Table begins on p. 419 of The Cambridge Companion of English Renaissance Drama; I am just doing what it is doing. I guess you would be happier with an extra column for "First Publication."
ReplyDeleteI can handle the idea that a Marlowe play can be written circa 1589 but not published until 1633, and that the gap introduces a lot of complication about what is in that text and exactly who might have been involved. Right!
This is part of what has got me interested in this as a reading project, the co-writing and lost plays and fast-changing publishing. The messy texts, the dimness bewteen the world that existed and the world we see via the texts. It's interesting.
ok, if you don't want to get into which version yet, that's fair. I'm just saying if you're talking about these plays in the context of what else was going on culturally at the time, and it seems that you are, the version you read is relevant. the cultural context that version was written/performed in may be very different from the time period you're placing it in.
ReplyDeletecarry on.
I don't know if these issues in this period are more or less complicated than with Greek plays. No translation to worry about, but more parts moving around.
ReplyDeletedo they have to be more complicated than with Greek plays to be relevant to the discussion you're trying to have?
ReplyDelete"have to be"? No. We - I and others who wander by this blog - have dealt with these problems before.
ReplyDeleteI'll pitch in from the sidelines to recommend reading both versions of Faustus--that way you get more Faustus.
ReplyDeleteSince you're reading all the plays Marlowe wrote for Edward Alleyn, let me also recommend "The Alleyn Papers," which collects all his known documents. There's a lot in there about the extra-literary business of Elizabethan theater.
Doug Skinner (your blog won't let me post with my URL, for some no doubt nefarious reason)
Thanks. The Alleyn compilation is clearly worth poking around in it if nothing else. Just the kind of thing I want to get to know.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is slowly rotting; what can we do.
"The Alleyn Papers" is easy to thumb through (figuratively) at the Internet Archive.
ReplyDeleteHave you read the three Parnassus plays (performed at Cambridge c. 1600)? The second and third have some funny jibes at Shakespeare. If nothing else, do look up the scene in the third play in which two graduates audition for the Lord Chamberlain's Men (for Richard Burbage and Will Kemp!) and are rejected because educated men make bad actors.
Doug Skinner
Ha ha, that is the first thing I did, before I answered you, poking at one of the copies at Internet Archive.
ReplyDeleteI had not realized the Parnassus plays were so direct. I will have to take a look at them.