Assignments for the course of Critical Survey of EngLit
Submitted by: Muhammad Ilyas ID: 22978
Discipline: MPhil English Class: 1st semester (C)
Course: Critical Survey of EngLit Submission Date: 24-12-2024
Presented to The Esteemed Professor Dr. Hanif Rasool
Department of English
Qurtaba University
Contents
1. Shakespeare and Jonson: A Comparative Reflection
2. Desire and Humanism in Christopher Marlowe’s Tragedies: A Critical
Review
Shakespeare and Jonson: A Comparative Reflection
Introduction
The relationship between William Shakespeare and Ben Jonson has long been a subject of
critical intrigue. The article "Significant Others: On the Comparison of Shakespeare and Jonson"
by James Loxley and Fionnuala O'Neill Tonning reexamines the comparative framework often
used to explore these two towering figures of early modern English drama. Rather than
perpetuating traditional dichotomies that pit Shakespeare's "transcendence" against Jonson's
"dated topicality," the authors advocate for a nuanced approach that reveals the interplay of
innovation, collaboration, and context in both playwrights' works. This review critically engages
with their insights and evaluates the implications of this reimagined comparative lens.
Overview
Loxley and Tonning provide a sweeping reassessment of Shakespeare and Jonson's "co-
dependency," a term they borrow from David Riggs. The article traces how entrenched critical
dichotomies—such as Shakespeare as the universal dramatist versus Jonson as the literary
craftsman—have shaped, and at times limited, scholarly discourse. Highlighting recent
developments, including archival discoveries and studies of collaborative authorship, the authors
argue for a more integrated understanding of the playwrights' contributions. Essays within the
special issue explore topics such as the use of Skeltonic poetic forms, engagement with actors'
parts, and representations of nationhood, challenging preconceived notions of their
distinctiveness.
Critique
The article's greatest strength lies in its ability to deconstruct binaries that have historically
defined the relationship between Shakespeare and Jonson. By positioning both writers within the
broader cultural and theatrical ecosystem of early modern England, Loxley and Tonning
emphasize their shared concerns with performance, politics, and historical memory. For instance,
the discussion of Skeltonic poetic forms as tools for engaging with contemporary aesthetics and
politics demonstrates the fluidity of their creative processes, moving beyond static comparisons.
However, the article's theoretical density may alienate readers unfamiliar with the intricacies of
early modern scholarship. While the authors successfully highlight the benefits of decentering
the "great dramatist" framework, they could have delved deeper into the practical implications of
such a shift for classroom pedagogy and broader public discourse. Additionally, the focus on
archival discoveries and collaborative practices is illuminating but risks overshadowing other
facets of their legacy, such as their influence on subsequent literary traditions.
Implications
This reimagined comparative approach has far-reaching implications. By situating Shakespeare
and Jonson within a network of cultural, political, and performative dynamics, the article
challenges the primacy of authorial genius and invites scholars to reconsider how dramatic
production is contextualized. Furthermore, it underscores the value of interdisciplinary
methodologies, from textual analysis to performance studies, in uncovering new dimensions of
their works.
Conclusion
Loxley and Tonning’s article offer a timely intervention in Shakespeare-Jonson scholarship,
urging critics to move beyond reductive comparisons and engage with the complexities of their
"co-dependency." While its theoretical sophistication may pose challenges, the article succeeds
in opening new avenues for understanding the interplay of collaboration, innovation, and cultural
production in early modern drama. This nuanced perspective not only enriches academic
discourse but also deepens our appreciation of the enduring relevance of these literary giants.
Desire and Humanism in Christopher Marlowe’s Tragedies: A Critical Review
Introduction
Christopher Marlowe, often regarded as Shakespeare’s most significant predecessor, imbued his
tragedies with an extraordinary exploration of human ambition, desire, and the essence of
Renaissance humanism. The article "Analysis of ‘Desire’ and ‘Humanism’ in Christopher
Marlowe’s Tragedies" by Yonggang Zhao delves into these themes across Marlowe’s major
works, including Tamburlaine the Great, The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, and The Jew
of Malta. This review examines Zhao’s analysis, highlighting its insights and limitations in
contextualizing Marlowe’s portrayal of desire and its tragic consequences.
Overview
Zhao’s article explores how Marlowe’s protagonists embody an insatiable desire for power,
knowledge, and wealth, reflecting the humanistic ideals of self-determination and intellectual
exploration. In Tamburlaine the Great, the eponymous hero’s ambition to conquer the world
illustrates the Renaissance spirit of challenging divine authority. Similarly, Doctor Faustus
portrays the titular character’s quest for infinite knowledge, culminating in a tragic reckoning
with his own limitations. In The Jew of Malta, Barabas’s obsession with wealth underscores the
corrupting influence of material desire. Zhao argues that these characters, while ultimately tragic,
symbolize the boundless potential and contradictions of Renaissance humanism.
Critique
Zhao’s analysis is commendable for its thematic coherence and its ability to situate Marlowe’s
works within the intellectual currents of the Renaissance. The discussion of Tamburlaine as a
symbol of human aspiration and defiance is particularly compelling, capturing the play’s
celebration of individual agency against the constraints of divine will. Similarly, the
interpretation of Faustus’s inner conflict as a reflection of the tension between medieval theology
and Renaissance secularism adds depth to Marlowe’s portrayal of human ambition.
However, Zhao’s article occasionally oversimplifies the complexities of Marlowe’s characters.
For instance, the analysis of Barabas focuses heavily on his materialism without fully engaging
with the socio-political dimensions of his character, such as the anti-Semitic prejudices that
shape his actions. Additionally, while the article highlights the tragic consequences of unbridled
desire, it does not adequately address Marlowe’s critique of the societal structures that enable
and constrain such ambitions. The reliance on textual evidence is strong but could be enriched by
a more nuanced exploration of performance and audience reception.
Implications
Zhao’s exploration of desire and humanism in Marlowe’s tragedies underscores the enduring
relevance of these themes in understanding human nature and societal dynamics. By portraying
protagonists who challenge the limits of their existence, Marlowe invites audiences to grapple
with the ethical and philosophical questions of their time. The article’s focus on Renaissance
humanism highlights the transformative potential of individual ambition while cautioning against
its excesses, offering valuable insights for contemporary discussions on identity, power, and
morality.
Conclusion
Yonggang Zhao’s article provides a thoughtful analysis of desire and humanism in Marlowe’s
tragedies, illuminating the interplay of ambition, morality, and tragedy in Renaissance literature.
While its thematic focus is compelling, the article could benefit from a more nuanced
engagement with the socio-political contexts of Marlowe’s works. Nevertheless, Zhao’s insights
enrich our understanding of Marlowe’s legacy, affirming his place as a pivotal figure in the
evolution of English drama and the humanistic ideals of the Renaissance.
