RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

AIMS & OBJECTIVES

The researcher will do this research to know about the Tamburlaine the Great. Who, from a
Scythian Shepherd by his rare and wonderful Conquests, became a most puissant and mighty
Monique.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher will emphasize and use the doctrinal method for this project topic.
 INTRODUCTION

Written and published in 1587, the play Tamburlaine the Great was well received by English
society. Part I was originally a single play; Christopher Marlowe wrote Part II a year later due
to the initial play’s popularity.
Along with his contemporaries, Shakespeare and Kyd, Marlowe is considered one of the most
important English playwrights of the 16th century, a period in which the theatre was
transformed from a mere demonstration of communal piety into an expression of literary
achievement.

Even though Marlowe is considered an important playwright, Tamburlaine the Great was the
only play actually published during his lifetime, at the beginning of his literary career. This

2|Page
was partly because, with a lack of copyright laws, publication made it easier for other
companies to 'steal' one's plays.
The play is considered an important stylistic innovator of the period because it adapted blank
verse, breaking from the rigid style in which poetry and plays were written before it. 1

The play breaks with contemporary morality in a way that must have been both scandalous
and exhilarating at the time. Like the Guise in Marlowe's The Massacre of Paris, Tamburlaine
likes best that which flies beyond his reach. In other words, he is a typical Marlovian
'Overreacher'. Medieval society had preached that each individual should know his (or her)
place. Marlowe was fascinated by those who, through force of character, rejected the lot into
which they were born and, through force of personality, reached for the stars. Marlowe's
Barabas in The Jew of Malta seeks limitless wealth; Faustus seeks forbidden knowledge;
Mortimer (in Edward II) wants to usurp the crown. However, the shepherd Tamburlaine is
more ambitious than any of them: he aims to rule the world and rival the gods! No wonder
Marlowe's contemporaries considered him a dangerous atheist.
Elizabethan audiences would have recognized hubris when they saw it. They had consumed a
diet of moralizing tracts such as The Mirror of Magistrates. So the expectation would be to
watch Tamburlaine rise on the Boethian wheel of fortune, only to fall. This does not happen.
Tamburlaine "holds the Fates bound fast in iron chains, And with his hand turns Fortune's
wheel about". Through his Hegelian will, Tamburlaine defines his own fate and the destiny of
others. This was nothing short of revolutionary.
Even when Marlowe wrote his potboiling Part II, he refused to give Tamburlaine a
conventional fall. Indeed, it is the death of the hero in Tamburlaine (rather than some
character fault) that constitutes the tragedy. "Tamburlaine, the Scourge of God, must die," but
he dies threatening to ascend to heaven and conquer new dominions.
Tamburlaine the Great can be seen as a milestone in the Elizabethan drama and is considered
the first public success of Elizabethan drama. Even if the play is considered inferior to later
works, there is no denying Marlowe’s influence on the English stage before the closing of the
theaters in 1642 by the Puritans.
Tamburlaine the Great is a masterpiece that marked the beginning of introducing vivid
language and complexity into the plays of that time and demonstrated the potential of blank
verse.2

CHARACTERS:-

Tamburlaine :-

1
Bevington, David. From Mankind to Marlowe: Growth of Structure in Elizabethan Drama.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965.

2
Geckle, George L. Tamburlaine and Edward II: Text and Performance. New Jersey: Humanities
Press International, 1988.

3|Page
Tamburlaine is the main character of the play. He is initially a shepherd who manages to
conquer Turkey and other countries. He is described as being a very proud man, seeing
himself as a God, bigger that Mahomet and chosen by the Gods to rule over everyone. When
talking about himself, he always mentions himself as being the Great Tamburlaine. He is very
cruel and war-loving, expecting his sons to be just the same. When Calyphas end up not
rising to his father’s standards, Tamburlaine kills him. In many ways, Tamburlaine is a titan
who tries to take down the ancient Gods, but fails.
Amyras :-
Tamburlaine’s successor to the throne, Amyras is a young version of Tamburlaine. He is
cruel and loves war and violence above everything else. Tamburlaine names him his
successor on his death bed, and Amyras laments that he will never be able to be as glorious as
his father.
Cosroe :-
Cosroe attempts to overthrow his brother by plotting with Tamburlaine. He is persuasive and
manages to convince others that he is a wiser fit for a ruler than his brother is. However, he is
naive enough to let Tamburlaine take his crown after they win the battle against his brother.
Zenocrate :-
An Egyptian princess whom Tamburlaine captures. She quickly falls in love with him even
though she was supposed to marry someone else. She has three children with Tamburlaine.
Her love for her Tamburlaine makes her ignore his cruel nature. Just like Tamburlaine, she is
very proud until the day she dies.3
Mycetes
Mycetes appears in the first part of the play as the king of Persia. He is a coward and admits
that he is not wise enough to be king. He is abused by his brother, Cosroe, but does nothing to
stop it.
Callapine :-
Callapine manages to remain alive and unconquered by Tamburlaine. Callapine is the heir of
the Turkish Empire, Bajazeth's son. Callapine attacks Tamburline one more time before
Tamburline dies, and it is implied that he will continue to attack Tamburlaine’s heir.
Bajazeth :-
He is the emperor of Turkey in the first part, captured and conquered by Tamburlaine. He is
very proud and violent in his language. Bajazeth kills himself by bashing his head into the
walls of his cell when he realizes that he Tamburlaine will humiliate him forever.
Zabina :-

3
ORIENTALISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MUSLIM CHARACTERS IN TAMBURLAINE

4|Page
Zabina is the Turkish queen captured with her husband, Bajazeth. Before her husband is
defeated, she manifests proudness when speaking with Zenocrate. When Zabina sees that
Bajazeth killed himself, she does the same thing as he did and kills herself.
Orcanes :-
A fierce enemy of Tamburlaine, he is the king of Natolia before Tamburlaine captures him.
He attributes one of his victories to Christ, denoting a Christian-like mentality rather than the
Islamic one found in the majority of the characters in the play.
Calyphas :-
Calyphas is one of Tamburlaine’s sons. He is different from his two brothers, who are almost
a perfect image of their father. Because of his kind nature and because he is not interested in
war, Calyphas is killed by his own father.
Anippe :-
Anippe is Zenocrate’s maid who is told to treat Zabina as a slave after she is conquered.
Perdicas :-
Calyphas's idle companion.
Olympia :-
She is the wife to the captain of Balsera, appearing in the second part of the play. After her
husband dies, she stabs her son and then makes sure her husband and son’s bodies are
cremated. She tries to kill herself, but Theridamas stops her. He falls in love with her and
intends to take her to Tamburlaine; however, Olympia tricks him into killing her.
Menaphon
He is a Persian lord who conspires with Cosroe to overthrow Mycetes.
Meandre :-
Meandre is Mycete’s adviser, loyal to him until he is defeated; thereafter, he becomes loyal to
Cosroe.
King of Soria :-
Another king conquered by Tamburlaine, forced to pull his chariot and hanged when he
couldn’t do it anymore.
King of Trebizon :-
After he is conquered by Tamburlaine, he is forced to pull his chariot. Tamburlaine
eventually kills him.
King of Jerusalem :-
Just like the King of Trebizon and Soria, he is forced by Tambrlaine to pull his chariot.
The son of Captain of Balsera :-
After his father dies, his mother kills him to spare him from torture and humiliation.

5|Page
Captain of Balsera :-
The Captain of Balsera is killed when Techelles and Theridamas attack his city.
Agydas :-
He is a lord traveling with Zenocrate when Tamburlaine captures her. He tries to convince
her not to give in to Tamburlaine’s advantages, and Tamburlaine hears him. Fearing that he
will be tortured, Agydas kills himself.4
Techelles :-
Techelles is the king of Fez, loyal to Tamburlaine.
Usumcasane :-
Usumcasane is the King of Morocco and loyal to Tamburlaine.
Sigismond :-
Sigismond is the King of Hungary. He vows not to attack Orcanes, but breaks his vow. He is
defeated, and Orcanes believes that it is because Sismond didn’t kept his word that he won.
Theridamas :-
Theridamas was Mycetes’ chief captain, sent to kill Tamburlaine. He is convinced to switch
sides and becomes devoted to Tamburlaine.
Almeda :-
Callapines’ jailer, who is promised a kingdom if he helps him get out of jail.
King of Arabia :-
Also called Alcidamus, he is the one who was supposed to marry Zenocrate. Even though
Zenocrate prays for his life, he is killed during Tamburlaine’s battle with the sultan of Egypt.
Governor of Damascus :-
He tries to save his city by sending a gift to Tamburlaine, but he fails.
Governor of Babylon :-
The Governor of Babylon is a proud man, hiding in his city when Tamburlaine attacks it.
When the city is conquered, the governor tries to convince Tamburlaine not to kill him, but
his plan fails.
Celebinus :-
One of Tamburlaine’s sons. He is like his father, cruel and bloodthirsty.
Frederick :-
The one who convinces Sigismund to break his vow of peace with Orcanes.

4
CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE IN CONTEXT

6|Page
ANALYSIS OF TAMBURLAINE THE GREAT

PROLOGUE 1 .
The prologue contrasts the “stately” theme of Tamburlaine the Great with the frivolous
“clownage” and “mother wits” of other works, presumably referring to contemporary dramas.
It further prepares the audience for a tale of conquest and bold rhetoric, and defers to them
the judgment of Tamburlaine’s fortunes as pictured in “this tragic glass”5.

Analysis
Marlowe’s prologue effectively establishes a certain set of expectations for the play that
follows. It will be distant from contemporary drama in both form and subject: it will be the
tale of the extraordinary military exploits of a hero, Tamburlaine. And it will, he suggests,
contain elements of tragedy.6

The prologue, though most likely not performed by a chorus as in classical tragedy the play
itself gives no indication of who’s speaking thus invokes elements of Greek tragedy and the
Elizabethan drama of the time. As in the former, fate has a prominent role here, but unlike the
works of antiquity, Marlowe suggests that there’s no definitive moral parable present
in Tamburlaine. In the final line of the prologue he instead instructs the audience to “applaud
his fortunes as you please,” thus subordinating his the Poet’s judgment to theirs. Like his
description of the play as a tragic glass, this concluding line reflects the emerging
Renaissance notion found also in Shakespeare that the poet should merely, in Hamlet’s
words, “hold, as ‘twere, the mirror up to nature.”
Tamburlaine’s towering ambition and supreme self-confidence likewise correspond to the
classical theme of hubris, which would later feature as a major theme in Marlowe’s
masterpiece, Faustus. But Marlowe’s frequent use of the word “scourge” to describe his hero
both in Tamburlaine’s own speeches and elsewhere suggests the influence of an
interpretation common in Elizabethan Christian theology in which tyrants and warlords
function indirectly as agents of God’s divine retribution for mankind’s sins. Despite his
reputation as an atheist, Marlowe was an accomplished student of theology, and the
“scourge” trope features prominently in one of his principal sources for the story of
Tamburlaine, Thomas Fortescue’s The Forest. Among others, Fortescue names Tamburlaine
specifically as an example of an unwitting “minister of God."
Certainly in Scene 1.1 Marlowe presents the victims of Tamburlaine’s first conquest as
worthy targets of divine punishment. Mycetes is a pompous, weak, incompetent ruler,
inadequate even to master his own speech, much less an empire. Despite Cosroe’s more-or-
less blunt assertion that he’s unfit to rule, Mycetes remains oblivious to the threat posed by
his more competent brother. And Cosroe, though certainly more suited to rule, demonstrates
gratuitous cruelty by not only plotting to depose his older brother, but also humiliating
Mycetes in front of the other Persian lords by repeatedly pointing out his inadequacies.

5
Bevington, David. From Mankind to Marlowe: Growth of Structure in Elizabethan Drama.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965.

6
Wilson, F.P. Marlowe and the Early Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.

7|Page
By beginning the play with this representation of the Persian nobility, Marlowe effectively
creates a stark contrast between these supposedly well-bred aristocrats and the Scythian
shepherd Tamburlaine. Mycetes may be a king, but he doesn’t act, speak, or look like one.
And though born a shepherd, Tamburlaine has a genius for compelling poetic language, a
striking, noble appearance, and immediately establishes himself a decisive, bold leader. Also
unlike Mycetes, his natural gifts command both total loyalty and admiration from his
followers. He can be cruel such as when he insists on holding Zenocate and her companions
against their will but in contrast to Cosroe he wears his intentions and his ambitions on his
sleeve. In a matter of minutes, he’s sure of his love of Zenocrate and declares to all present
his determination to marry her.

In addition to the contrasting juxtaposition with Cosroe and Mycetes, Marlowe employs a
variety of other devices, including situational irony and imagery, to establish Tamburlaine as
a natural-born ruler. His claim to nobility, he promises, will be proven by his deeds, and as
evidence merely tosses off his shepherd’s clothes to reveal the armor beneath. As will be the
case throughout the play, his appearance provokes comparison with the majesty of nature “As
princely lions when they rouse themselves, Stretching their paws and threatening herds of
beasts, So in his armor looketh Tamburlaine”.

Tamburlaine's self-confidence is shocking. As yet only a common bandit, Tamburlaine

rejects commands of protection Zenocrate and Magnetes possess from the emperors of both
the Turks and the Tartars, saying “But now you see these letters and commands Are
countermanded by a greater man”. And Marlowe then goes on to back Tamburlaine’s claim
up with the plot twist of his successful appeal to Theridamas. Realizing his force is by far the
inferior one he has only 500 foot to Theridamas’s 1000 horse he asks for a parlay. But
instead of attempting to bargain perhaps by exchanging Zenocrate and the Median lords and
or their treasure he launches unhesitatingly into a poetic, compelling speech declaring his
invincibility and urging Theridamas to join him.

This brilliant piece of oratory conveys the sheer force of Tamburlaine’s will, as expressed in
lines like the striking imagery of the rightly famous lines, “I hold the fates fast bound in iron
chains and with my hand turn Fortune’s wheel about”. And here, against all odds,
Tamburlaine’s command does indeed effectively countermand that of a “real” king Mycetes
as Theridamas turns against that king’s command: “Won with thy words and conquered with
thy looks I yield myself, my men, and horse to thee...”. Marlowe thus creates a twist both
ironic in its reversal of expectations yet at the same time an explicit fulfillment of
Tamburlaine’s earlier claim.

That the Scythian warlord’s first victory is a victory of the mind suggests that Tamburlaine
the Great is something more than an account of the military exploits of a fearsome warlord.
Though expressed as a lust for conquest, Tamburlaine’s rhetoric reveals that his ambitions are
in fact much greater than this purely earthly aim. The breadth of aspiration contained in the
claim to “hold the Fates fast bound in iron chains” far exceeds the comparably mundane
desire to rule a large empire. Besides his self-definition as an expression of divine will as a
so-called “scourge” Tamburlaine repeatedly identifies the object of his desire for conquest as
the “earth” or “world”. He aims to dominate as much by force of will as by force of arms
not any particular expanse of land, but the entirety of the material world. In this way, his
desire is at once earthly and divine: to rule an empire is the realm of man, but to rule the earth
is the province of God.
As the play progresses, Tamburlaine will show further signs of his deviation from the
archetype of the conquering hero. Already hinted at by Techelles comment about Tamurlaine

8|Page
being in love, Tamburlaine's feelings for Zenocrate will prove a complicating influence for
the Scythian warrior, and also represents a distinctively Renaissance addition to the type of
the classical hero. Scene 1.2, however, ends with Zenocrate’s exclamation of distress at her
captivity: “I must be pleased perforce. Wretched Zenocrate!” In contrast, Agydas accepts his
fate relatively passively. Zenocrate, though a woman and therefore excluded from the realm
of war, thus shows herself as stronger-willed than her supposed guardians. This seems to
suggest that Tamburlaine’s courtship of her will be a rocky one. Additionally, by giving
Zenocrate the scene’s final line, Marlowe lays special emphasis on her importance in the
play.7

.
In these scenes, Marlowe continues to reinforce, rather than rebuke in accordance with
convention, Tamburlaine’s extravagant claims to near-omnipotence. Virtually every character
so far that has come into direct contact with Tamburlaine seems to more or less share
Tamburlaine’s self-evaluation, such as when Cosroe calls him, essentially, an oracle.
Menaphon’s description of Tamburlaine, besides echoing those earlier in the play, reinforces
Tamburlaine’s status as an agent of fate, or a “scourge” of divine will, by invoking
comparisons to and images of the gods and the most inexorable forces of nature. The
“heavenly bodies in their spheres...guid e his steps and actions to the throne...”. His features
encompass the entire natural cycle of mortal existence: “His lofty brows in folds do figure
death, And in their smoothness amity and life”.

Just as Tamburlaine’s features are an exact outward figuration of Tamburlaine’s own nature
as a man a classic Renaissance and Romantic trope they also seem to figure the impersonal
powers of nature itself. The intermingling of the gods (often portrayed in antiquity as the
personification of natural forces) and natural phenomena seen as governed by scientific law
evidences Marlowe’s particular fusion of classical and Renaissance sensibilities.
Furthermore, similarly to Marlowe’s addition of the capacity for deep romantic love to his
hero, Tamburlaine’s physical features fuse the imposing stature of the warlord with the
archetypical features of a poet. The Poet’s sensitivity and even otherworldliness were often
figured in imagery much like Menaphon’s here: “Pale of complexion, wrought in him with
passion...”.

The inclusion of this description makes all the more clear the kind of near-hubris evident in
Mycetes and Cosroe’s treatment of Tamburlaine. After what we’ve seen of the Scythian, the
self-satisfied predictions of victory of Meander and Mycetes seem ridiculous. We know
better than to believe Meander’s assertion that, “You Mycetes , fighting more for honor than
for gold, Shall massacre those greedy-minded slaves”. In context, the smug words of these
“civilized” nobles are highly ironic: their confidence in their superiority by royal birth looks
quite ignoble in contrast to the supposedly barbarous Scythian Tamburlaine’s more action-
based conception of virtue.

Mycetes' belittling comment about poetry “’tis a pretty toy to be a poet” further suggests a
connection between this attitude and their inability to grasp the nature of Tamburlaine.
Perhaps we can see Tamburlaine whose physical form other characters almost seem to

7
Waith, Eugene. The Herculean Hero in Marlowe, Chapman, Shakespeare, and Dryden. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1967.

9|Page
“read” as one would a text as a kind of embodied poetry, whose words are so powerful as to
function as actions, and whose body and actions are as expressive as a poem.

Cosroe, as always, fares slightly better than Mycetes and his cronies: he at least recognizes
Tamburlaine for what he is. Yet although he defers to Tamburlaine’s judgment about the
outcome of the battle, Cosroe never seems to question whether his plan to simply reward
Tamburlaine with a subordinate kingdom while he (i.e. Cosroe) rules as emperor is really
plausible. It’s clear to the reader, at least, that a man who claims to “hold the fates bound fast
in iron chains” won’t settle for the role of vassal to Cosroe.

The battle with Mycetes is Tamburlaine’s first major military victory, but the scene with
Mycetes also frames it as, like his conversion of Theridamas, a victory of his words and
mind. At once he insults both Mycetes martial cowardice and his verbal incompetence,
outwitting him in conversation just as he’s about to outfight him on the battlefield: “Are you
the witty king of Persia?” he asks ironically (2.4.23). And in the ensuing exchange he both
makes a fool of Mycetes and takes his crown, albeit temporarily; thus in their conversation
Mycetes is neither witty, nor, in a sense, the king of Persia.
After Tamburlaine has seized the crown, Mycetes says (in prose, a sign of his ineloquence)
“Such another word, and I will have thee executed. Come, give it to me”. “Tamburlaine. No;
I took it prisoner Mycetes. You lie; I gave it to you Tamburlaine. Then ‘tis mine.
Mycetes. No; I mean I let you keep it. Tamburlaine. Well, I mean you shall have it again.
Here, take it for a while; I lend it thee”. Tamburlaine here baffles and mocks Mycetes by
playing on the literal meanings of his words, a technique that Shakespeare used to great effect
in many of his plays. Additionally, Marlowe further suggests that this scene represents the
“real” defeat of Mycetes by leaving his disappearance totally out of the text's discussion.
Even after meeting him and witnessing his prowess in battle, Cosroe still fails to comprehend
Tamburlaine. After the battle, Tamburlaine quite literally crowns Cosroe, saying, “Think thee
invested now as royally, Even by the mighty hand of Tamburlaine”. Cosroe therefore still
hasn’t earned his crown, and Tamburlaine, at least symbolically, possesses a greater claim to
sovereignty as the source of Cosroe’s own.

Once he has his crown, however, Cosroe immediately transitions to treating Tamburlaine as a
regular subordinate. He is thus a kind of double-usurper: first of Mycetes, and then of
Tamburlaine, who has won the crown with his deeds and therefore has a right to it (Roy
Battenhouse, 193). It’s no surprise that Tamburlaine isn’t satisfied. Such is his thirst for rule
that he declares “A god is not so glorious as a king. I think the pleasure they enjoy in heaven
Can not compare with kingly joys in earth”. The rest of his speech, with its references to the
“pearl and gold” of a crown, is uncharacteristically unconvincing. Marlowe thus uses bathos
to suggest the inadequacy of the earthly expressions of Tamburlaine’s ambition with its real,
immeasurably sweeping nature.

Cosroe, Meander, and Ortygius’ rhetoric about the “base” nature of “this devilish shepherd”
in contrast to their own nobility echoes the false confidence of Mycetes. But just as they
claim the god’s backing for their right to rule, when chastised for his treachery by a dying
Cosroe after the battle Tamburlaine claims the precedent of Jove himself. Cosroe thus
represents a view of the gods as the forces that ordain the laws by which people live.
Tamburlaine, in contrast, sees them as models for his own nature, and thus implicitly for
human nature in general. For Cosroe, the fact of his rule and of his status as a noble are signs
of the favor of the gods. For Tamburlaine, it’s the intrinsic composition of his human nature
that makes him godlike. His speech to Cosroe, in contrast to the one in 2.5, soars far above
earthly aspirations to elaborate a theory of human nature in general. Once again, however, he

10 | P a g e
ends on a bathetic note: “Until we reach the ripest fruit of all...The sweet fruition of an
earthly crown”. In this speech Marlowe represents Tamburlaine, despite all his gifts, running
up against the limits of humanity in general. For fleeting moments in the poetry of lines like
“Our souls, whose faculties can comprehend The wondrous architecture of the world And
measure every wandering plant’s course” we have what seems an adequate image for the
furthest reaches of human desire. Yet when Tamburlaine attempts to fix that desire to a
particular object, the result is necessarily unsatisfying.

.
Tamburlaine has always been cruel as the scourge of god he must be but the cruelty he
exhibits in these scenes is above-and-beyond. Though he contends that his treatment of
Damascus is a matter of honor he must abide by the timeline laid out in his system of
changing the color of his tents his treatment of Bajazeth and Zabina is entirely gratuitous.8

Tamburlaine’s cruelty only escalates from 4.1 to 4.4. By the end it’s clear how far we are
from Tamburlaine’s pursuit of his grand vision, which he’s claimed as justification for his
ruthlessness, and which he’s laid out so poetically in the earlier sections of the play. Fittingly,
then, this is the only part of the play in which Marlowe has Tamburlaine speak in prose. We
saw this technique earlier when Mycetes’ speaking in prose signified his incompetence with
language. Notably, Tamburlaine’s first prose lines occur in 4.4. in response to Bajazeth,
whose dialogue Marlowe also here represents in prose as though, in his cruelty, Tamburlaine
is sinking to Bajazeth's level. This heartless display obviously contributes to Zenocrate’s
worries about the fate of her father, and possibly she dislikes it even in the case of Bajazeth
and Zabina. She seems, at least, no longer inclined to insult the former empress.
Clearly Tamburlaine and his followers see these exchanges as comic, but to an outsider they
come off only as juvenile and cruel. For example: “Sirrah,” Tamburlaine says, “why fall you
not to? Are you so daintily brought up, you cannot eat your own flesh?”. Earlier, Bajazeth
had cursed Tamburlaine's banquet by reference to the myth of Thyestes, who was tricked into
eating his own sons. Tamburlaine's response here also prompts a perverse comparison to the
Last Supper, at which Jesus said of the bread "This is my body which is given for you." Thus
the imagery of self-cannibalism in the scene inverts the selfless proffering by Jesus of his
own body to his followers.

At first Zenocrate’s pleas are entirely ineffective: Tamburlaine doesn’t even explain his
refusal. But she does, eventually, get an explanation from him, namely that his honor won’t
allow him to go back on what he’s declared he’ll do. She suggests that he can both be
merciful and keep his honor, and this seems to move Tamburlaine to the promise of safety for
her father and friends.

This exchange represents the first indication of psychological conflict within the mind of
Tamburlaine. Thus far he’s been all decisive actions, simply ruthlessly pursuing the path laid
out for him as the “scourge of God.” Yet even as he reveals a capacity for gratuitous cruelty,
Tamburlaine’s love for Zenocrate also opens up the possibility of a shift toward mercy not
inherent in his nature. This represents a fundamental shift in the play. Tamburlaine’s fate no
longer seems set in stone; he has a decision to make with real moral consequences, and the
answer isn’t immediately clear. Up to this point, Marlowe’s play perhaps functioned more

8
Kuriyama, Constance Brown. Christopher Marlowe: A Renaissance Life. Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press, 2002.

11 | P a g e
like an epic than a modern drama, but Tamburlaine’s psychological crisis here marks a firm
break with this earlier mode.

This final act of the play (at least, of its first part) extends the shift from external to internal
conflict established in Act 4. Here there’s little focus on the battles themselves, no exchanges
of threats or speeches glorifying one army or another. The dramatic tension emerges from the
tension Tamburlaine’s cruelty, relentless pursuit of worldly power, and commitment to what
he calls his honor creates between both Tamburlaine and Zenocrate and within Tamburlaine
himself.

Tamburlaine’s capacity to recognize and create beauty is a theme that runs throughout the
play and is central to his unique character. But this trait, which sets him apart from your
typical conquering warlord, doesn’t come into conflict with the bloodthirsty part of his nature
until Act 5. Up to this point, Tamburlaine has consistently cited Zenocrate as a further
inspiration for his will to rule her beauty urges him to courageous acts, and he feels
compelled to win a kingdom worthy of her.

Yet as his cruelty reaches its zenith with the heartless murder of the Virgins and the suicides
of Bajazeth and Zabina, Tamburlaine begins to doubt himself for the first time. In fact, these
two scenes form a pair of miniature allegories that inform our understanding of
Tamburlaine’s psychological conflict and eventual transformation. Just after ordering the
Virgins killed, Tamburlaine remarks, “I will not spare these proud Egyptians, Nor change
my martial observations For all the wealth of Gihon’s golden waves, Or for the love of
Venus, would she leave The angry god of arms and lie with me”. Mars and Venus can be
seen as representing the conflicting claims that Zenocrate and Tamburlaine’s warlike nature
have on Tamburlaine. Similarly, Zenocrate sees in the debasement and ultimate suicides of
Bajazeth and Zabina a parable of the consequences of valuing earthly glory and pride above
all else. Bajazeth’s decision to die alone, without Zabina, suggests that confronted with the
choice outlined by Tamburlaine, he too chose Mars over Venus.

Yet Tamburlaine ultimately rebukes this choice, and the key to understanding why lies in the
soliloquy that immediately follows the murder of the Virgins. He frames his dilemma
explicitly in terms of a conflict between Beauty associated with poetry and Honor. One
could see this soliloquy as both a reconsideration of the relationship between love or beauty
and honor and of the nature of beauty itself. Even the greatest poem imaginable, Tamburlaine
argues, “Wherein, as in a mirror, we perceive the highest reaches of a human wit...Yet
should hover in their the poet’s restless heads One thought, one grace, one wonder, at the
least9” .

Earlier we saw Tamburlaine confidently declare that “A god is not so glorious as a king,”
recognizing no greater values than those within the reach of humankind here on earth . But
now in Zenocrate’s beauty Tamburlaine seems to see a figure of an object of desire that
exceeds his and all people’s capacity to obtain or even conceive of it. The “mirror” of
poetry, because it only reflects nature as ordered by “the highest reaches of a human wit,”
will always fail to capture the quality of otherworldliness of which Zenocrate’s beauty is a
sign. He decides that “every warrior that is rapt with love Of fame, of valor, and of victory,
Must needs have beauty beat on his conceits”. His warlike nature must be tempered by the

9
Marlowe, Christopher (1971). J.W. Harper, ed. Tamburlaine. London: Ernst Benn Limited

12 | P a g e
influence of beauty; to avoid the fate of men like Bajazeth, the desire for earthly rule must not
eclipse the existence of value beyond the material.

Tamburlaine, “Thus conceiving and subduing both” (honor and beauty), reaches a
psychological compromise that allows him to be both merciful and honorable. With the help
of Zenocrate he conquers his own will to conquer, a victory that allows him to finally “take
truce with all the world.”

PROLOGUE 2.
Spoken by an unnamed character, the Prologue asserts that Marlowe wrote Part Two
of Tamburlaine in response to the popularity of the first part. It also predicts the death of both
Tamburlaine and Zenocrate. She will die first, and the audience will witness the grief of
Tamburlaine at her death. This second part will also, it claims, depict the fall of Tamburlaine
as the “murderous Fates throw all his triumphs down”10.

Analysis
Some time has passed since the first part of the play, enough for Tamburlaine and Zenocrate
to have three sons old enough for war. In the meantime, Tamburlaine’s might and the range
of his empire have only continued to expand. He’s now a mighty emperor, and the prologue
implies that there’s nowhere to go but down.

Marlowe quickly makes it clear that Tamburlaine’s “truce with all the world” is over. We
don’t know how long he kept it, but the catalog of conquests given by his followers suggests
that it wasn’t long at all. It’s possible to see this reversal as evidence that Marlowe never
planned to make a second part thus taking his prologue at face value and that Tamburlaine
changes his mind simply because clearly a peaceful, domestic Tamburlaine wouldn’t make
for an interesting play.

But there’s also plenty of evidence for seeing Tamburlaine’s inability to give up conquest as
a failure, a failure that both frames and makes possible this second part of the play. Even as
his empire and his army expand, the sheer magnetism that made Tamburlaine the Great great
appears to be fading. First, there’s the ease with which Callapine persuades Alameda to help
him escape. Only fear, not the ardent loyalty we saw in Part One, binds Alameda to
Tamburlaine, “he whose wrath is death, My sovereign lord, renownèd Tamburlaine”. And
fear isn't enough.
Likewise, Tamburlaine’s sons stubbornly resist though except in the case of Calyphas not
actively his attempts to mold them as he wills. But the clearest contrast with the first part lies
in the fact that Tamburlaine sees the signs of Zenocrate’s beauty manifest in his sons only as
weakness: “But yet methinks their looks are amorous, Not martial as the sons of
Tamburlaine”. Zenocrate herself seems likewise unable to influence him: his response to her
pleas to give up his life of war and to go easier on their sons hardly affect him.

In contrast, where Part One opened on the pomposity, bickering, and duplicitousness of the
Persian court, Part Two finds Tamburlaine’s enemies setting aside differences of religion and
memories of past wrongs to confront him as a united front. They appear, at least, to act
honorably, their commitment to their respective faiths highlighting the disappearance of
Tamburlaine’s own twisted theology of boundless ambition and desire. Act One of Part Two

10
Wilson, F. P. Marlowe and the Early Shakespeare (Clark Lecture) Clarendon Press, Oxford 1953

13 | P a g e
leaves us wondering whether Zenocrate’s warning has come true, whether Tamburlaine has
in fact effectively become merely a more powerful Bajazeth. This time, the tragic
prophesizing of the prologue appears to be coming true.

Marlowe has clearly designed the betrayal of Orcanes by Sigismund as a critique of

organized religion. Some see this critique, which is more prominent in Part Two than Part
One, as a condemnation of religion itself. But Marlow seems to have crafted Orcanes as a
clear contrast to Sigismund, representing a commitment to the idea of religion rather than its
earthly, institutional manifestation.

Where Sigismund’s followers act on the view of the church that infidels lie outside the realm
of established morals, Orcanes adheres to the spirit rather than the letter of his faith. He
demonstrates a remarkably flexible conception of religious belief, stating after his victory
over Sigismund that “Yet in my thoughts shall Christ be honorèd, Not doing Mahomet an
injury”. Likewise, Sigismund demonstrates legitimate, heartfelt repentance. Significantly,
he’s alone as he makes his confession, perhaps signaling Marlowe’s preference for concept of
a direct, individual relationship between believer and god, rather than one mediated by the
institution of the church.

Sigismund and Zenocrate provide parallel examples of accepting one’s mortality with grace.
Even on her deathbed, Zenocrate attempts to act as a moderating influence on Tamburlaine,
appealing that he “But let me die, my love; yet let me die; With love and patience let your
true love die”. Her request implies that part of the nature of love is the ability to part with the
object of love with grace, which means accepting the limits of what you can control.

Yet Tamburlaine appears not to hear her, almost literally. When she dies as he’s giving a
speech discoursing on her beauty, his next line is “What, is she dead?” as though he noticed a
moment too late. And he responds to her death with the outrageous notion of launching an
assault on the heavens to get her back, a reaction about as far away as possible from
accepting her death with “love and patience.” Only when Theridamas interrupts does he stop
raving: “Ah, good my lord, be patient. She is dead, And all this raging cannot make her
live”.

Zenocrate’s illness does prompt Tamburlaine to utter some of the first real poetry we’ve seen
from him in this part of the play. The speech that opens the scene contains largely
predictable, but occasionally quite sharp, imagery picturing his despair and of the vaults of
heaven awaiting Zenocrate: ”Black is the beauty of the brightest day” and “The crystal
springs whose taste illuminates refinèd eyes with an eternal sight like trièd silver runs
through Paradise To entertain divine Zenocrate”. Yet the refrain repeated throughout “To
entertain divine Zenocrate,” though given in words of praise, by the end acquires a strangely
melancholic tone.

Yet he know longer knows quite what use to put his poetry to, as evidenced by his
speechifying right up until Zenocrate’s death. His choice to embalm Zenocrate and keep her
with him which also seems to contradict her instruction “let me die” can also be seen in
relation to his use of language. The elaborate images with which he conveys his plan for
preserving and ultimately entombing her body subtly suggests that he is has been
embalming her as much with his words as anything else.

14 | P a g e
Callapine’s rousing speech to the assembly of kings and lords who’ve come together to back
him is reminiscent of Tamburlaine’s manner of addressing his followers in the first part of the
play. Of course he never reaches the poetry characteristic of Tamburlaine’s best moments,
but here at least is a bold ruler fully in command of his language, and evidently with justice
on his side. Notably, he even invokes one of Tamburlaine’s favorite words ‘scourge’ saying,
“That Jove, surcharged with pity of our wrongs, Will pour it down in showers on our heads,
Scourging the pride of cursèd Tamburlaine”. Marlowe here invokes this key term to suggest
that Tamburlaine may now be the proud tyrant that needs scourging, like Mycetes, Cosroe,
and Bajazeth before him.
Tamburlaine’s mourning of Zenocrate in particular also contains a series of biblical
references that further develop the theme of the “Scourge of God.” Of the burning town,
Larissa, he declares,

So, burn the turrets of this cursèd town,

Flame to the highest region of the air,

And king heads of exhalations

That, being fiery meteors may presage

Death and destruction to th’ inhabitants!

Over my zenith hang a blazing star,

That may endure till heaven be dissolved.... (3.2.1-6)11.

The imagery of creating a new star via the burning town forms a perverse echo of the gospel
story of the wise men and the birth of Jesus, whose risen star leads them to him. But while
that star foretells the coming of the Son of God, this one presages “death and destruction.”
The “pillar” he has placed in memory of her likewise invites comparison to the pillar erected
by Jacob in Genesis 28:18 to commemorate his vision of a “ladder to heaven,” sometimes
also taken as a metaphor for Jesus Christ.

It’s possible to see this as mere sacrilege, setting up Tamburlaine for divine punishment. Yet
there’s also a sense in which Zenocrate has seemed to offer him a “ladder to heaven”
throughout both parts of the play. She’s been his moral compass, and it’s plausible to think
that her figurative ascent could produce a kind of guiding star, reminding Tamburlaine to
look to the heavens for guidance as well.

Marlowe’s increased reliance in Part Two of Tamburlaine on biblical imagery taken from his
long theological studies surely stems in part from the fact that, in contrast to Part One,
Marlowe had no historical sources to go on for the narrative of Part Two. But that doesn’t
necessarily mean that Marlowe didn’t use what he had at hand to craft a coherent sequel one
in which what’s at stake is not so much Tamburlaine’s earthly deeds, but, perhaps, his soul.
However, Tamburlaine doesn't yet seem to be making good use of the “ladder” offered him
by the advice of Zenocrate. In fact, his slightly frantic, detailed exposition of the art of siege
to his sons, following immediately on their grieving for Zenocrate, suggests that he’s instead
simply burying the depth of his grief in more conquest and war.

11
Tamburlaine the great

15 | P a g e
This speech and the inundation of boasts, insults, and meticulous catalogs of the size of
armies all wear on far too long in 3.5. One can see this either as a sign that Marlowe was at a
loss to recreate the same sense of high drama in the second part of his play, or as a means of
demonstrating the ultimate emptiness of earthly power and pomp. Either way, much of this
dialogue is quite boring, no doubt about it.

Calyphas is, arguably, the only comic character in Tamburlaine, and though he’s not a match
for his father or even his brothers as a warrior, he demonstrates considerable wit. Some of his
wordplay is as clever and compelling as any in the play: “Take you the honor, I will take my
ease; My wisdom shall excuse my cowardice...And should I go and do nor harm nor good,
I might have harm, which all the good I have, joined with my father’s crown, would never
cure”. His final words to his brothers “I’ll to cards. Perdicas!” is a striking comedic echo of
the common battle cry “I’ll to arms!”.
Though all the other characters, besides Zenocrate, see in Calyphas only a shameful coward,
he makes some very sane points: “I know, sir, what it is to kill a man; It works remorse of
conscience in me. I take no pleasure to be murderous, Nor care for blood when wine will
quench my thirst”. He also claims, repeatedly, not to be a coward, and if for a moment we
take him at his word we can see that his logic is as follows: If I were needed, I would fight.
But you’ll win regardless, so why risk my life?

For Calyphas, then, violence is a means, not an end, and his assertion that heroism in battle is
no guarantee against death runs precisely contrary to Tamburlaine’s beliefs. “The bullets fly
at random and where they list; And should I go and kill a thousand men, I were as soon
rewarded with a shot”. In this sense Calyphas echoes the sentiments of Zenocrate when she
urged Tamburlaine to give up combat before his luck runs out, and can perhaps be seen as
representing the persistence of her influence in this latter part of the play. When Tamburlaine
kills him, then, he effectively kills off the last earthly representative of the moderating
influence exerted on him by Zenocrate. His inability to accept these qualities of Zenocrate in
his son is thus a kind of allegory for his failure to fully assimilate them into his own
character.

As the only part of the play not directly related to Tamburlaine, the drama of Olympia seems
a curious interlude. Some see it as a largely irrelevant side-story, attributable to the messiness
of Part Two. Yet we can also see Olympia’s story as an echo of Tamburlaine’s courtship of
Zenocrate, though this suit, of course, fails horribly. So on the one hand, Olympia’s story
provides another example of the fall from greatness of Tamburlaine and his train in the
second part. But on the other hand, Olympia’s story also contains an additional element not
present in Zenocrate’s: death. Theridamas in effect attempts to woo Olympia precisely as
Tamburlaine wooed Zenocrate, failing to see that in this case the woman in question is still
deeply grieving for the death of her husband and son. In this light, this side narrative becomes
a further illustration of a major theme of this play: that one can’t overcome the power of
death by simple force of will or show of earthly wealth and strength.

We’re thus set up in many ways to expect a resolution to the question of how the now fully
tyrannical Tamburlaine will meet his own death when it comes. His cruelty, after being
checked by Zenocrate, has regained its zenith in his treatment of the defeated Turkish kings.
By the time he executes two of them, along with the Governor of Babylon, it seems almost
automatic, not done out of rage or honor but merely out of habit.

Everything points, then, to Tamburlaine’s illness as the ordained punishment for which every
“Scourge of God” is destined once he’s fulfilled his purpose. His decision to burn the holy

16 | P a g e
books in Babylon and repudiate Mahomet even going so far as to literally propose himself as
a replacement is Tamburlaine’s greatest sacrilege yet. Additionally, the story of Babylon
figures prominently in the Old Testament as an instance of God’s punishing humankind for
aspiring too high.

Even Tamburlaine sees his sickness as the work of a god: “What daring god torments my
body thus And seeks to conquer mighty Tamburlaine?” Yet his doctor says that it’s quite
possible Tamburlaine will survive if he rests. One can therefore see Tamburlaine as faced
with one final choice: rest, and perhaps survive, but possibly lose to Callapine; or, go out and
face the enemy, keep your empire, and quite probably die. For Tamburlaine, of course, the
choice is obvious.

Having made his choice, though, Tamburlaine's attitude toward his own impending death
appears to change. Looking over a map of the world, he asks, “And shall I die, and this
unconquerèd?”. Instead of flying into a rage as one might expect, he turns to his sons: “Here,
lovely boys; what death forbids my life, That let your lives command in spite of death”
(5.3.159-160). He will die knowing that he also lives on in them, and crowns Amyras his
successor. Tamburlaine then gives Amyras this advice, “Let not thy love exceed thine honor,
son, Nor bar thy mind that magnanimity That nobly must admit necessity” . These three
lines are, effectively, a synthesis of the themes of Tamburlaine’s soliloquy in 5.2 of Part One,
and Zenocrate’s instruction “yet let me die; with love and patience let your true love die”. We
may take Tamburlaine as in some sense “conceiving and subduing” both his life and is death
not in the sense of conquering both, but rather in the sense of synthesizing them.

Marlowe’s ending here is fundamentally ambiguous. Has Tamburlaine wound up as a typical

story of hubris? Or is this just an exploration of the quite human fact that humans “must” die,
with which the gods have little to do? Either reading is plausible, and both are contained in
the ambiguity of Tamburlaine’s dying words: “For Tamburlaine, the scourge of God, must
die”. It may be that as the scourge of God, his time has come, or simply his time has come as
Tamburlaine the man. What you decide might depend on how seriously you take the
Prologue and its assertion that this play sees “ the murderous Fates thro w all Tamburlaine’s
triumphs down.” Whatever interpretation one ultimately decides on, the ambiguity Marlowe
establishes surrounding the ultimate fate of Tamburlaine is critical to the significance
of Tamburlaine. To go back to the first prologue, it’s up to you to “applaud his fortunes as
you please”.

CONCLUSION:-

Masculinity
A theme that appears in Tamburlaine the Great is how masculinity is
perceived. Tamburlaine stands as a symbol of masculinity: unaffected by the petty things in
life, focused on war, violence, and conquering. Tamburlaine’s son, on the other hand, is not
an acceptable model regarding masculinity. His disinterest in war and violence makes him a
bastard in the eyes of his father, who ends up killing him without remorse. The notion that
men have to be violent and stoic remained in literature for a long period of time.

17 | P a g e
The limitations of human accomplishment
Much like in Marlowe's Faustus, the range and limits of human accomplishment is perhaps
the dominant theme of Tamburlaine. Being a play written in the Renaissance period,
Tamburlaine represents the human who rises above his status given through birth. The
Renaissance put the man in the spotlight instead of the Gods: even if the Gods remain
important figures in the plays and literature in general written in that period, human are able
for the first time to rise above the status that they originally had. Thus Tamburlaine rises from
a mere shepherd to a king ruling over an empire. Tamburlaine represents the absolute
maximum of human aspiration, something previously unseen in drama except as an example
of foolishness. Even in Greek thought, which assigned a much higher place to humankind
than Christianity, characters such as Tamburlaine were always severely punished for their
conceit. Tamburlaine, however, though of low birth, challenges both divine and earthly
power with impunity. Throughout the play, the reach of his aspirations as expressed in his
words is in constant tension with the goals of conquest and power to which he attaches his
desire. Tamburlaine’s will proves as powerful as a force of nature, but it still runs up against
the limitations imposed by his material body and the necessity of limiting his desire to
specific objectives.
.
Morality
Tamburlaine the Great manages to incorporate some of the ideas promoted by the popular
morality plays of the period. Even if the allusions are not as clear as in the earlier plays, the
fact that Tamburlaine ultimately dies could be considered a typical ending for morality plays.
Tamburlaine is made to die in the play because the spirit of the time demanded that evil and
greed be punished. Even if Marlowe raised his character to an almost God-like position, the
religious mentality of the time dictated that excessive pride was a sin against God, and that
such a character couldn't remain in a position fit for a God.
Poetry and Beauty
Tamburlaine’s ability to produce poetry of the highest order is a central component of his
effectiveness. It’s through the power of his words that he wins over Theridamas, which
constitutes his first victory of the play. Even his body is often described as a kind of poetry
that figures his inner nature by means of his appearance. This is another idea drawn from the
Greeks that was quite popular during the Renaissance period in which Marlowe wrote. The
influence of Renaissance thought also appears through Marlowe’s suggestion that poetry
functions as the mode of expression of the human nature itself, as a kind of unity of language,
will, and action, as embodied in Tamburlaine.
The turning point of Part I, at which Tamburlaine resolves the psychological crisis brought on
by his disagreement with Zenocrate, relies on his revision of his conception of poetry and
beauty. In his soliloquy, he moves from conceiving of poetry beauty as merely a product of
human intelligence to the visible sign of humankind’s capacity to conceive even what lies
beyond their limitations.
Hubris and Ambition

18 | P a g e
A consistent theme of Greek drama was divine punishment of hubris. In Greek, the word
literally referred to actions that shamed or humiliated a victim for the pleasure of the abuser.
Contextually it often meant specifically defiance of the gods, as in the story of Arachne and
Athena. Arachne was a girl who bragged that she was better at weaving than Athena; in
response, Athena challenged her to a weaving contest. Arachne won, which only further
enraged Athena, who then turned her into a spider. Tamburlaine clearly exhibits both of these
forms of hubris.
Yet Marlowe leaves it quite ambiguous whether or not Tamburlaine's death ultimately
signifies divine retribution. Both prologues predict a tragic end for Tamburlaine, but in fact
his death is rather dignified. His empire remains intact, and his sons have become satisfactory
successors. Marlowe thus appears to largely invoke the theme of hubris in order to
complicate or subvert it. Tamburlaine’s change of heart in Part I and the grace with which he
accepts his death suggest a more nuanced concept of hubris perhaps as rigidity or inability to
change, and within the control of humankind rather than mediated by the gods.
Fate
Tamburlaine’s supreme self-confidence stems from his firm belief that he’s “fated” to rule
the world. This is striking, since, presumably, few can lay claim to knowledge of their own
fate. Yet Tamburlaine’s prediction seems to come true, or as true as possible. In this way he
resembles a kind of inverse version of the Greek hero Achilles. At his birth, Achilles’ mother
made a deal with the Fates: her son received virtual invulnerability from wounds in exchange
for the fate of an early death. Achilles thus knew he was going to die; Tamburlaine, in
contrast, both appears invulnerable and assured of endless success.
As the story of Achilles shows, Greek thought conceived of fate as determined by the gods,
though one’s fate could be altered by appeal to those gods. Various forms of Christianity
have conceived of fate in different ways, from the Calvinist doctrine of predestination (people
are born destined for heaven or hell) to the Catholic notion of original sin (in which hell
figures as a fate which can be averted through Church-mediated faith). Marlowe appears to
reject the common theme in all these doctrines that a person’s fate is, ultimately, out of his or
her hands, something to be “accepted” once handed down. Even as Tamburlaine acts out his
fate as the “scourge of God,” he reserves the right to redefine that role, and in the end he ends
up deviating quite far from the script.
Human Nature
The faculties of the human spirit inspire some of Tamburlaine’s most beautiful poetry. His
conception of this spirit seems to be, like so much of Marlowe’s thought, a kind of fusion of
Christian and Greek ideas. In Christianity, humankind was made in the image of God there’s
some essential sense in which human nature is modeled on the nature of God. However, the
specifically human is evil, and that which is good in humans is divine. The Greek gods, in
contrast, largely represented forces of nature external to humankind, but were infused with
the human qualities of jealously, anger, violence, and so on.
Tamburlaine fuses these systems of belief into one in which human nature is itself divine,
including its base or “bad” qualities, but only insofar as they further the core drive of human
nature, which is the endless aspiration inspired by its boundless capacity for knowledge. In
other words, humanity desires to become divine to contain the world, or, as Tamburlaine

19 | P a g e
expresses it, to rule it. Cruelty, pride, and violence are all therefore admirable insofar as they
serve to expand the range of possibilities for human aspiration.
Organized Religion vs. Religious Belief
Tamburlaine the Great is filled with references to various Greek and Roman gods, as well as
to the Christian God and Mahomet (in modern spelling, Muhammad). Often the same
characters call on different gods at different times, which indicates Marlowe’s relatively fluid
conception of religious belief. Some have seen the play as anti-religious, and Sigismund’s
betrayal of Orcanes as a condemnation of Christian hypocrisy writ large.
Sigismund’s followers, who convince him to break his oath, cite the logic that was used by
the Church in order to justify the Crusades wars waged against Muslim peoples in order to
win back the “holy land” of the birthplace of Christ and surrounding areas. The idea was that
the rights of believers always took precedent over those of infidels. Clearly, this doctrine has
nothing to do with the teachings of the Bible and Christian theology itself, but it served the
material interests of the Church. This issue may have been particularly close to Marlowe, as
he was persecuted throughout his life as a supposed atheist, even being arrested at one point
for blasphemy. Additionally, he almost didn’t receive his degree from Cambridge because of
a rumor that he was planning on becoming a Catholic priest (intense acrimony between
Catholics and Protestants was a regular feature of English culture at that time).
Love vs. Honor
One of Marlowe’s innovations on the dramatic tradition he inherited was to move away from
conceiving of the conflicting claims of different human qualities as a strict binary opposition.
Instead, he develops his characters dialectically, meaning that as different forces,
psychological and external, press on them, they react by working out a new balance between
the conflicting demands. Thus Zenocrate originally sees the prospect of marriage to
Tamburlaine as a violation of her honor since she’s already betrothed, he’s a mere shepherd,
and so on yet his natural nobility and gentle treatment of her causes her to modify her sense
of honor to be more defined by actions than by rules and expectations.
Tamburlaine comes to a similar realization. He begins by seeing honor as defined by strict
adherence to his word and to his nature. However, in an innovation on the heroic archetype,
his nature also includes the capacity for deep, romantic love. When the claims his conception
of honor are making on him conflict with the claims his love for Zenocrate are making on
him, he responds not by choosing one or the other, but rather by altering his conceptions of
both. He decides it’s not necessarily dishonorable to alter his decisions on the basis of his
love for Zenocrate instead, it’s a way of honoring that love.

20 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Websites

 www.theatrehistory.com/british/marlowe003.html
 https://www.enotes.com › Study Guides
 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1094/1094-h/1094-h.html
 www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/tamburlaine-great

Books

 A Study Guide for Christopher Marlowe's "Tamburlaine the Great"-Gale, Cengage

Learning
 Marlowe's Tamburlaine: a reconsideration- Robert Alexander Kimbrough
 Marlowe's Tamburlaine: the image and the stage-William A. Armstrong

21 | P a g e