Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Marlowe's unique narrator in 'Hero and Leander,' who offers a distinct perspective on the tragic love story. The narrator's ironic comments and seemingly contradictory statements challenge the traditional reading of the myth and reveal a sophisticated understanding of the characters' motivations and emotions. Marlowe's interpretation of Musaeus' tale is anything but ordinary, as it paints the relationship between Hero and Leander in a more negative light.
What you will learn
Typology: Study notes
1 / 51
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
i
by
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts The Department of English^ in to The School of Graduate Studies of The University of Alabama in Huntsville
ii
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree from The University of Alabama in Huntsville, I agree that the Library of this Universityshall make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for extensive copying for scholarly purposes may be granted by my advisor or, in his/her absence, by the Chair of the Department or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to The University of Alabama in Huntsville in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in this thesis.
iv
The University of Alabama in Huntsville^ The School of Graduate Studies
Degree: Master of Arts College/Dept: Liberal Arts/English Name of Candidate: Kylie Lemon Title: The Ironic Narrator in Christopher Marlowe’s Hero and Leander
In his minor-epic poem Hero and Leander , Christopher Marlowe creates a narrator whose distinctive narrative presence and unique personality make him impossible for the reader to ignore. Existing scholarship often dismisses this narrator as an unintelligent and inept storyteller who is used by Marlowe to achieve a comedic effect; however, this study argues for a reevaluation of Marlowe’s narrator as one who uses a sophisticated form of irony to achieve an alternative purpose. A close-reading of this narrator-character in light of Wayne Booth’s and Linda Hutcheon’s discussions of irony reveals a narrator whose use of seemingly contradictory statements, less-than- flattering descriptions of Hero and Leander, and ironic interjections enable him to alert his readers to a flaw in the relationship between the poem’s title characters. In this way, Marlowe not only establishes a unique narrative voice, but he also uses his narrator as a vehicle to challenge the traditional reading of a popular mythological story.
v
This project could not have been accomplished without the help of the many individuals who have served as my teachers, mentors, and colleagues throughout my time at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. First of all, I would like to thank those directly involved in this project. Dr. Jeffrey Nelson, thank you for initially encouraging me to pursue my thesis, and for serving as the director of my project; your constant support and regular feedback was a vital factor in the success of my project. Dr. Chad Thomas, thank you for serving on my committee and for offering valuable feedback for revisions; your suggestions went a long way to strengthen the overall quality of my project. Dr. Eric Smith, thank you for serving on my committee and for challenging me to consider aspects of my argument that I never would have considered without your insight and guidance. Your feedback helped me to see my project in a new light and forced me to think about the greater importance of my work. I would also like to thank Dr. Alanna Frost for all of the support and guidance she has given me in the past two years. You have taught me so much about teaching writing, and I am grateful for all of the opportunities you have given me to continue improving as a teacher.
Since it was first published in the late sixteenth century, Christopher Marlowe’s Hero and Leander , a unique translation of the famous poem written by Musaeus, has achieved considerable attention from readers and critics a like; however, the poem seems to have enjoyed a return to the spotlight by scholars in the later half of the twentieth century. Critics such as Robert E. Knoll, and W.L. Godshalk are specifically interested in the outspoken storyteller and creative personality that Marlowe crafted to narrate the well-known mythical tale. Through two separate textual analyses of Marlowe’s work, these authors trace the narrator’s thoughts and actions throughout the poem in order to expose the narrator as an unintelligent, long-winded, and inept storyteller. In a sense, these scholars, along with others, argue that the narrator is simply a satirical tool used by Marlowe for comedic purposes. It wasn’t until the turn of the century that John Leonard suggested an alternative reading. Although the focus of Leonard’s work is not on the narrator, in the midst of his discussion he offers the view that perhaps Marlowe’s narrator is being consciously ironic and thus using his seemingly inept statements and behaviors to manipulate his readers. Although a new and interesting idea, the scope of Leonard’s project prevents him from fully developing this discussion. It is this suggestion by Leonard that served as the seed for my study and the following discussion of Marlowe’s narrator. This study seeks to explore the possibility that Marlowe’s narrator can be read
as a reliable source of information and that he uses a sophisticated form of irony to alert readers to a new understanding of Musaeus’s original poem. Through a close textual analysis of the statements made by the narrator, along with a comparative analysis of Marlowe’s work with that of his contemporaries, I will argue that not only can the narrator’s statements and comments be interpreted as ironic, but the historical and cultural context in which Marlowe was writing supports the use and attribution of this irony. Considering the broader cultural context of Marlowe’s work and the popular trend of literary translation that was taking place during the Renaissance, reading Marlowe’s narrator as ironic may actually make more sense than the alternative reading. In the introduction to her collection, Elizabethan Minor Epics , Elizabeth Donno explains that during the Renaissance, “it was the young poet[s] then, intoxicated with the rimes of ‘sweet-lipt Ovid,’ who popularized the erotic epyllion. Utilizing some well- known myth for the core of their narrative, these poets stressed originality not of subject matter but of treatment” (18). In creating an ironic narrator, Marlowe achieves this “originally” in a way that a simple unreliable narrator does not. Indeed, when read ironically, Marlowe’s narrator is not only unique but his ironic statements support a reading of the poem that challenges the traditional reading of the classical myth. The narrator’s careful language choice casts judgment on the characters in the poem, and his seemingly contradictory statements lead the reader to question the sincerity of the love between Hero and Leander; in this way, Marlowe is able to offer a reading of the tragic tale of Hero and Leander unlike anyone else’s. In order to fully grasp the argument that I propose, it is imperative that readers understand the critical conversation regarding Marlowe’s narrator to which I am
A New Perspective Regarding Marlowe’s Perplexing Narrator
In Hero and Leander , Marlowe creates a distinct narrator; rather than accept the role of reserved storyteller, the narrator freely comments on the events unfolding around him, often interjecting his own thoughts and opinions directly into the narration of the myth. In this way, Marlowe introduces a narrative voice that is distinct from Marlowe’s own and impossible for the reader to ignore. This narrator has gained a considerable amount of attention by scholars because many of his comments influence the way that the reader interprets (or misinterprets) the events of the poem. Despite the narrator’s sophisticated language and intellectual persona, most critics question the reliability of Marlowe’s narrator on account of the contradictory nature of his statements. W.L. Godshalk and Robert Knoll^1 are two of the most prominent examples of this view, and they argue that Marlowe uses the narrator’s incompetence for comic purposes. In contrast, John Leonard^2 and Erich Segal offer arguments which shift the humor of the poem away from the incompetent narrator and over to the characters themselves. All of these scholars offer interesting and compelling views of the poem, but their arguments in
(^1) The work of Paul M. Cubeta also takes a similar approach and Chiney Banerjee argues that while the narrator is serious, he still serves as a comic device in the poem. (^2) William Keach offers a suggestion similar to Leonard’s although he sees the narrator’s attitude towards the characters shifting throughout the course of the poem rather than staying consistently ironic.
regards to the narrator himself are problematic. Although Godshalk and Knoll are justified in the reservations they have regarding Marlowe’s narrator, their focus on the unreliable qualities of this character fail to take into consideration the moments of clarity and sophistication that mark him throughout the poem. The scope of Leonard’s project prevents him from developing a thorough perspective of the narrator’s objectives, and Segal fails to consider the role the narrator plays in the textual account of the characters’ actions. The view of Marlowe’s narrator as unreliable does not take into account the many times throughout the poem that he does accurately describe the story he is telling; therefore the reservations expressed by Godshalk, and Knoll are arguable. Although Godshalk’s main discussion surrounds the ending of Hero and Leander , part of his argument relies on the connection that he sees between the narrator and the young lovers. Godshalk reinforces throughout his work that Marlowe’s narrator “cannot be trusted” because his comments often do not seem to correlate with the action he is witnessing; in Godshalk’s words: “a good deal of his interpretations seems to miss the point” (307). The problem, however, is that although he says that the narrator “seems to miss the point,” he himself admits that at times we can accept the narrator’s “vision” (309). So, can we truly categorize the narrator as inept? The narrator’s incompetence is essential to Godshalk’s overall conclusion because he sees a parallel existing between the narrator’s inability to narrate the story effectively and the inability of Hero and Leander to continue having a love relationship at the end of the poem (312). He concludes that Hero and Leander is “Marlowe’s human comedy, and the bumbling artist merely rounds out his picture of the human condition” (312). In this reading, Marlowe’s narrator must be inept
speaks out several times in the first person” and “none of these first person references can be identified with Marlowe. The ‘I’ is clearly the conventional poet, and all the action is reported from his single, conventional point of view” (129). Unfortunately, Knoll’s discussion of the poem does not maintain a clear separation of the two; Knoll uses the two interchangeably by repeatedly commenting on both the narrator’s perception of events and also Marlowe’s own views. This can be seen in the following passage when Knoll points out: “The speaker sees love as cruel, but Marlowe and we see its violence as necessary to its joy” (136). Here, it is unclear how the separation between the narrator and Marlowe is being made. Knoll does address his cross-referencing by explaining that he believes that “we see each scene through two sets of eyes at once- one, those of a sympathetic romantic, the narrator; the other, the eyes of a man of experience, Marlowe himself,” but the discussion ends there (138). Readers are left wondering where the narrator’s voice ends and Marlowe’s begins, and this lack of distinction makes Knoll’s characterization of the narrator’s unreliability less convincing. Despite my reservations about the view of the narrator in these two studies, it is important to recognize that Godshalk and Knoll both have good reason for their lack of trust in Marlowe’s narrator. While it is true that at times the narrator’s statements seem to slightly contradict the events unfolding in the story that he is telling, at other times the narrator accurately dictates the story. In fact, while both authors center part of their argument around the unreliability of the narrator, both also rely on the narrator’s account of events. For example, Godshalk tells us that the narrator “belabors a truism” when he makes a comment about how the lovers are over-ruled by fate, and in the next paragraph he suggests that his commentary indicates “possibly, a more profound vision of the
poem” (309). So, in quick secession, not only does Godshalk suggest that readers mock the narrator’s use of elevated language, but he also asserts that the narrator’s statements may in fact point readers to a valid understanding of the poem’s overall purpose. Why is it that Godshalk can sometimes trust the narrator, but at other times he cannot? Because the arguments of both Godshalk’s and Knoll’s articles depend on the unreliability of Marlowe’s narrator, it seems to me that these readings suppress any alternative interpretations of the narrator. Although we can– like Godshalk and Knoll– read the narrator’s contradictions as a result of his incompetence, we can just as easily look at them in another way. Leonard and Segal view Marlowe’s poem differently in that they attribute the humor of the poem not to the narrator’s incompetence, but to the characters themselves; however, both authors fail to fully develop how this argument affects our view of the narrator. In Leonard’s account of Marlowe’s narrator, he chooses– like Godshalk and Knoll– to focus on the discrepancies between the events occurring in the poem and the narrator’s explanation, but he sees these discrepancies as a conscious choice made by the narrator to appear inept and thus accomplish an ulterior motive. Leonard cites Godshalk throughout his essay and agrees with his general description of the narrator as “inept,” but he takes his reading one stop further by suggesting that Marlowe uses the narrator’s unpredictability to manipulate his readers (57). Like Knoll, Leonard notices that the narrator assumes a tone characterized by a “wry, understated humor,” but he proposes that (rather than an imitation of Ovid) the narrator is actually “being consciously ironic” in order to discredit Hero (58). He concludes: “by feigning ineptitude, the narrator makes Hero’s actions speak for themselves– and they compromise her more effectively than any
Gongora’s translations. In addition, by leaving the narrator out of his discussion, Segal fails to acknowledge the difference between Marlowe the poet and the speaker whom Marlowe created. This is the same problem that Knoll experiences in his study. In Segal’s case, several times he references Marlowe’s use of harsh language and images to describe the love of Hero and Leander, but are these the words of the poet or of the narrator? Godshalk brings up this exact question when he asks: “How ultimately do we distinguish between Marlowe and the narrative voice?” (307). Godshalk concludes that we are “stuck with the narrator. It would be helpful to see certain passages as Marlowe’s own guideposts to the reader; the guideposts are, however, simply not there” (307). Indeed, we are “stuck with the narrator,” so despite Segal’s compelling reading of the relationship between Hero and Leander, this discussion cannot be fully complete without some acknowledgement of the role that the narrator serves to both the poem itself and the characterization of the lovers. It is easy to forget who is telling the story and thereby confuse Marlowe with his creation, but Marlowe’s clear characterization of a separate narrator cannot simply be ignored. Although much of the scholarship surrounding the narrator of Hero and Leander suggests that Marlowe created for his readers a narrator that “cannot be trusted,” in light of the work that has been accomplished by Leonard and Segal, a new perspective on Marlowe’s narrator needs to be explored. I argue that an alternative reading of the narrator as ironic not only accounts for the contradictory statements that he makes throughout the poem, but also explains why at times, he does demonstrate a coherent understanding of the story he is narrating; moreover, this reading informs a compelling
view of the narrator’s overall purpose in the poem as that of a character placed by Marlowe to point out the lustful nature of the well-known tragic lovers. Taking into consideration Marlowe’s historical context, my discussion demonstrates the possibility that in Hero and Leander Marlowe actually creates a sophisticated narrator that can be trusted , and whose ironic presence throughout the poem enables Marlowe to write a translation of Musaeus that most likely shocked and impressed his contemporaries because of its stark diversion from the original, and its utilization of a new type of narrator. By incorporating a narrator who uses judgmental language, intentionally contradictory statements, and periodic interjections all throughout the course of the story he tells, Marlowe develops a persona whose conspicuous presence in the poem cannot be ignored by the reader. Add to this the fact that Marlowe’s readers were exceedingly familiar with narrator’s tale, and the conditions become extremely suitable for the successful use of irony to take place. The alterations Marlowe makes to the myth of Hero and Leander would have been apparent to those familiar with it and, in turn, those changes would have alerted Marlowe’s readers to the ironic nature of his narrator’s comments. Indeed, when the poem is read in this way, it becomes clear that everything that the narrator says can be interpreted as ironic and that this irony serves a greater purpose in the poem. Rather than simply being a verbatim translation of Ovid or Musaeus, Marlowe’s translation instead establishes him as someone who cannot only write like the greats, but as someone who can take the work of the greats and do something new and unexpected. The irony employed by Marlowe’s narrator serves to accentuate a fundamental flaw in the relationship between Hero and Leander; thus, Marlowe’s Hero and Leander challenges the traditional reading of an extremely popular
Textual Clues and the “Scene” of Irony in Marlowe’s Work
Although the term itself was not widely used during the Renaissance, the concept of irony was utilized and understood by Marlowe and his contemporaries. D.C. Muecke explains that “the word ‘irony’ does not appear in English until 1502 and did not come into general literary use until the early eighteenth century,” but despite this absence of ironic vocabulary, English “was rich in colloquial terms for verbal usages which we might regard as being embryonic irony” (17). By the time Marlowe was writing, the use of irony was well established in literary works; in fact, in his 1589 work of poetic criticism, The Arte of English Poesie , George Puttenham offers an entire chapter on the “sensable figures altering and affecting the mynde by alteration of sence or intendements in whole clauses or speeches” (196). Throughout this chapter Puttenham discusses different aspects of language that today might be considered ironic in nature; he writes about the use of riddles, proverbs, sarcasm, and hyperbole among others (196-206). Although his definition of “ironia” as “the dry mock” does not encompass all that our modern conception of the term “irony” entails, the examples he provides to illustrate the various derivations of “ironia” suggest a notion of irony that is similar to our modern understanding (199-201). The similarities between our modern definition and Puttenham’s explanation can be seen in Muecke’s more recent study of irony; in it, he
agrees with Chevalier’s assertion that “The basic feature of every irony is a contrast between a reality and an appearance” (33). He asserts that irony differs from deception, however, in that “in irony the real meaning is meant to be inferred either from what the ironist says or from the context in which he says it; it is ‘withheld’ only in the weak sense that it is not explicit or not meant to be immediately apprehensible” (Muecke 35). The similarity of this definition to that of Puttenham’s suggests that even though the term used to identify irony has changed since the Renaissance, the general concept of irony has not. But, short of asking the author his intentions, how do we know if something is ironic? In regards to Hero and Leander specifically, how do we know that Marlowe intends for his narrator to be ironic rather than inept? With the help of Wayne Booth’s and Linda Hutcheon’s discussions of irony, I will offer possible answers to these questions. In his well-known A Rhetoric of Irony , Wayne Booth provides a discussion of the common features that appear in ironic works; Booth suggests locating these formations in a text as a methodology for recognizing irony in a written work, and this method can be applied to Marlowe’s minor epic poem. Booth asserts that “ironic reconstructions depend on an appeal to assumptions, often unstated, that ironists and readers share” (33). In addition, he identifies clues within the text that may indicate irony such as the following: contradictory statements, a speaker that “betrays ignorance or foolishness,” a disruption in the style of the speaker, and a “conflict between the beliefs expressed and the beliefs we hold and suspect the author of holding ” (57-73). So, according to Booth, if a close textual analysis of a work reveals the presence of the features listed above, there is a chance that irony is at play. However, Booth also asserts that in addition to identifying
