AVphxmsus — whether Alphonsus V., king of Aragon,
Sicily, and Naples (died 1454) or Alphonsus I., king of Ara- ^ /
gon and Navarre (died 1134), is not quite clear — is Tamhur'
laine emasculated. So far as the arrangement of scenes is
concerned, Greene's play is as good as Marlowe's. We learn
of the yoimg man's plans to regain his father's throne, of
the successive steps in the realization of ambition, of
Amurack's opposition to the conquest, of Alphonsus' fall-
ing in love with the Sultan's daughter. Throughout the
play, incident follows incident naturally and effectively.
The trouble with the play is not in the development of the
action. It is rather in the fact that Greene was not able
to grasp the conception of the forceful personality necessary
to the success of a play which depended so largely upon that
conception of character. The abimdance of strength, the
buoyancy of spirit, with which Tamburlaine compels interest,
were not in Greene's power to portray. Tamburlaine was
the very worst model Greene could have chosen.
The weakness of Alphonsus is very apparent. The line
of action, though developing naturally, falls into two parts.
There is, in reality, the play of Alphonsus, followed by the
play of Amurack the Turk, The lack of imity in action
results in lack of unity of character. Alphonsus, nominally
the hero, shares his prominence with his opponent. Indeed
Amurack is given the more prominence. He has the same



192 ROBERT GREENB

elements which Alphonsus has; and m addition he is en-
grossed in his troubles with his wife and daughter, and he
is involved in various kinds of magic incantations which
give a clap-trap interest to his career.
