Tamburlaine the Great and The Elizabethan Notions of Household, the Family and the State - Essay Example

of the English Literature ic and Modern) of the Concerned 26 November Tamburlaine the Great- The Elizabethan Notions of Relationship between the Household, the Family and the State Catherine Richardson is certainly right in saying that the Elizabethan audience had a particular notion regarding the relationship between the family and the state that to a great extent impacted their response to the early modern tragedies. To understand the dynamics of this particular relationship between the family and the state it is imperative to have an insight into the very genesis of the early modern tragedies and the Greek influences they affiliated and adhered to. In that context it does need to be mentioned that Seneca happened to be a great author who compiled the classical tragedies and a great number of well endowed English audience had read and admired the tragedies of Seneca (Boyle 12). There was a range of stylistic and thematic devices and concepts which the Elizabethan playwrights including Christopher Marlowe adopted and adhered to by culling them out from the tragedies of Seneca (Boyle 12). Some of such notions regarding the family and the state were borrowed by the Romans from Seneca as the Romans invaded Greeks and borrowed varied thematic notions and concerns from the Greek tragic framework. It is a known fact that many of the Seneca’s tragedies revolved around revenge, bloody family histories, and royal families. So the great challenge before the early playwrights who were influenced by Seneca was to adapt Seneca’s tragic themes to suit the English audience who had their own ideas of the household, the family and the state (Boyle 12). Thereby, Seneca’s influence had a great impact on the early modern tragedies, whose plot pertained to political power wielded by the nobility and the state, family honour, bloody feuds, individual revenge, and forbidden sexuality. Christopher Marlowe’s Tamburlaine the Great is indeed a worthy representative of this early tragic tradition given to political power, family issues, tensions between husband and wives and between parents and children. Catherine Richardson’s suggestion that “Watching a play in which family structures and authorities are threatened would have had a particular fission for early modern audiences” happens to be indeed apt and suitable. Actually this notion of Catherine Richardson could be further extended to assume that not only the Elizabethan audience, but to some extent the audience affiliated to all ages and times do harbour a somewhat solid view pertaining to the link between the family stability and the stability of the state. Hence, any artistic creation that hints at the annihilation of this symbiotic stability is bound to generate fear and awe and thereby enhance the tragic pleasure accrued by the audience. Marlowe’s tragic approach in Tamburlaine the Great seems to be cognizant of this relationship between the state and the household. For instance, one of the most tragic scenes in Tamburlaine the Great, where the waters of the Lake Asphalti betray their usual confines, as the aquatic creatures devour the human carcasses, must have hit the early modern audience like a thunder bolt, presenting a nightmarish scenario where the usurpation of the political authority by a barbaric political force eventually leads to the decimation of the families and the households. Tamburlaine’s short and precise order that “Drown them all, man, woman, and child”, must have presented to the early modern audience a scenario replete with violence, threatening to overpower the authority of the state and the consequent well being of the households, thereby successfully wringing out from the audience the emotions of fear, pity and awe, leading to an enhancement of the commensurate tragic pleasure. This notion of a political turmoil enveloping within its sway both the family and the state stability in way pushes the boundaries of the genre of tragedy to new heights (Cole 113). One other theme that dominated the socio-political milieu during the period of early modern tragedies was the notion of ‘legitimacy’. Legitimacy was a theme that was not merely of immense importance to the families and the households, but also to the dominant feudal structure and even to the royal family (Hopkins 183). Legitimacy of the heirs and the throne was the single most vital notion that engendered within its scope both the family and the state stability (Hopkins 183). It goes without saying that the eventual technique resorted to be the early modern tragedies to create a theatrical atmosphere and ambience which strongly derailed the cherished notions of the audience, thereby pushing them into a state of mind bereft of all the vouched for notions of familial and political stability, and giving way to an amorphous and raw consciousness seeped in wonder, fear, awe and sympathy, thereby augmenting and enhancing the tragic appeal inherent in the play. The monarchs depicted by Marlowe in Tamburlaine the Great to a large extent replicated the Tudor monarchs in their mindset and temperament. Marlowe exploits the character of Tamburlaine to further debate on the legitimate and the illegitimate, both within the households and the surrounding political forces. Marlowe tends to complicate the idea of Monarchy and the associated familial privileges by raising the big objection that is should one have access to political power by dint of legitimate familial descent, or should one have to earn the authority, both within the households and the Royal lineage? Throughout the play Tamburlaine resorts to both raw and savage violence and well contrived machinations to assure his legitimacy to the throne, a legitimacy that defied the set notions enshrined in the popular familial and political mindset. This must have given way to an intense sense of disassociation within the minds of the early English audience, diluting their coveted notions of stability to nudge them within a creative space that was receptive of new ideas and views. Displacing the set notions of legitimacy respected by the households and the state and the adjoining responsibilities that they owed to each other must have required the contriving of a larger than life force. And Tamburlaine is Marlowe’s answer to this challenge, who with his rhetorical acumen and brute violence, creates an aura of a powerful and awesome king that is cynical of both the established notions of political and familial legitimacy, thereby capable of ushering out an immense and deep tragic pleasure. Tamburlaine the Great is indeed an early modern tragedy that is replete with characters who symbolize the contemporary state authority and family structures. For instance in the Act I, scene I, Mycetes is introduced as a king who represents the traditional state authority though the only political entitlement that he enjoys is his birthright, that is his inheritance to the throne, as per the “divine rights of kings”, a political notion that the audience of the early modern tragedies were so aware of (Meisel 162). However, the irony is that Mycetes comes out as an indecisive, hesitant and unworthy king whose sway is challenged by an Asian barbarian, relying solely on one’s Machiavellian acumen and raw violence and brutality (Meisel 162). This in a way voices the dissatisfaction of the Audience of the Marlowe’s age and times with the Tudor kings. For instance, in his very second speech Mycetes is shown to be urging for advice to a Lord, “I perceive you think I am not wise enough to be a King, But I refer me to my noblemen That know my wit, and can be witness, I might command you to be slain for this Meander might I not.” (Part 1.1.1.19-24) All the time Mycetes is shown to be a king who is bent on absolving himself of his responsibilities and delegating decision making power to his inferiors, set against someone like Tamburlaine, who is proactive, decisive and brutal. Hence, in Tamburlaine the Great, Marlow’s ploy of placing a weak and inept king whose only advantage is his birthright, against a low born Tamburlaine, intent on shattering the set notions of family sanctity and royal privileges to establish himself as a king and perhaps a god must have shocked the set notions of the audience of early modern tragedies pertaining to family privileges and royal authority. The final impact is indeed shocking and settling at the same time. On character in Tamburlaine the Great that so precisely symbolizes the relationship between the family structures and state authority is that of Zenocrate (Shand 50). Zenocrate holds a social position that is very exalted in both a familial and political context (Shand 50). She happens to be a woman of high birth. She is a Soldan’s daughter. She also happens to be the niece of a king. In Act I, scene ii, when Tamburlaine kidnaps and rapes Zenocrate, he symbolically comes out in a ruthless manner on the prevailing family structure and state authority. Though, Zenocrate owns a treasure that is literally true and valid, she also carries with her a treasure that holds sway in a political and familial context and that is so dear to Tamburlaine, which happens to be the treasure bearing a mark of legitimate royalty. By usurping Zenocrate, Tamburlaine manages to gain validity and recognition in a familial and political context, the two attributes so dear to the audience of early modern tragedies. Tamburlaine vociferously declares this as he says, “Think you I weigh this treasure more than you, Not all the gold in India’s wealthy arms, Shall buy the meanest soldier in my train.” (Part 1.1.2.8587) As Tamburlaine abducts Zenocrate, he not merely abducts a royal person, rather also in a symbolic context; he abducts Zenocrate’s familial and political position and legitimacy (Shand 50). So Tamburlaine is at once a tyrant who openly mocks the established family structures and the instruments of state authority, yet who in the deepest recesses of his heart yearns for a position that is valid and legitimate as per the prevailing family norms and political frameworks. Hence, when Techelles tries to mock Tamburlaine by saying, “What Now? In love?”(Part1.1.2.106), Tamburlaine aptly responds, “Techelles, women must be flattered/But this is she with whom I am in love,” (Part 1.1.1.107-108). Eventually it is in the quest of this familial and political legitimacy, which must have seemed so soothing to the Renaissance audience that Tamburlaine depicts his vulnerability and soft side, in his delicate and tender wooing of Zenocrate. This alpha-male reaction to a friend’s bantering reveals that to what extent Tamburlaine is desirous of attaining political and social recognition. So, it is certainly true that most of the early modern tragedies like Tamburlaine the Great carried strong undercurrents affiliated to family structures and state authority. Thereby, it in this annihilation and restoration of the familial and political structures that the audience are able to experience the tragic pleasures like awe, fear and sympathy. Works Cited Boyle, AJ. Tragic Seneca: An Essay in the Theatrical Tradition. London: Routledge, 1997. Print. Cole, Douglas. Suffering and Evil in the Plays of Christopher Marlowe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962. Print. Hopkins, Lisa. “Christopher Marlowe and the Succession to the English Throne”. Yearbook of English Studies. 38, 1-2 (2008): 183-188. Print. Meisel, Marin. How Plays Work. London: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Shand, Skip. “Tamburlaine”. Shakespeare Bulletin 24.2 (2009): 49-50. Print. Read More