Tamburlaine the Great: Parts I and II

Tamburlaine the Great #1-2

by Christopher Marlowe, John D. Jump (Editor)

Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593) has been called the founder of English drama and the perfecter of dramatic blank verse. He is known as a poet and translator of Lucan and Ovid, and as a guide and leader for Shakespeare and the other Elizabethan poets and dramatists. Tamburlaine the Great was his most ambitious work and the first play written in English blank verse.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Classics, Fiction, Theatre, Poetry, Literature

Paperback

First published January 1, 1587

About the author

Christopher "Kit" Marlowe (baptised 26 February 1564) was an English dramatist, poet and translator of the Elizabethan era. The foremost Elizabethan tragedian next to William Shakespeare, he is known for his magnificent blank verse, his overreaching protagonists, and his own mysterious and untimely death.

The author's Wikipedia page.

Reviews

[BJ Lillis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christopher Marlowe is one of the most influential writers who ever lived. The first great Elizabethan playwright—if Shakespeare is The Beatles, astonishing in range, quality, sheer invention, and fame, Marlowe is inventing rock’n’roll. Marlowe was the first English writer, Tamburlaine the first English play, to unlock the potential of blank verse—unrhymed iambic pentameter—to simultaneously capture the rhythms of ordinary speech and heighten them; to make highly ornamented, allusive monologues drive relentlessly forward. Before his murder at 29, Marlowe found, or forged, in blank verse a style fit for the power, ambition, and larger-than-life excess of kings. Shakespeare would take his innovation and run with it.

Each act of Tamburlaine the Great, Part 1 is basically the same. Tamburlaine meets an enemy king. He makes a grand speech. His victory is foreordained. His rival promises to cast Tamburlaine and all his armies into hell. They battle. Tamburlaine wins. Repeat. Like levels in a video game, each final boss—the King of Persia, the Emperor of the Turks, the Sultan of Egypt—is bigger and badder than the last. Zenocrate, Tamburlaine’s queen, loves him because he’s a winner. He loves her because she’s unspeakably beautiful. But set aside your modern desire for psychological richness, and there’s a lot here. This is spectacle on a grand scale. A Hollywood blockbuster, except in place of digital effects (wide shots of armies breaking like waves, massive explosions), Marlowe uses pyrotechnic explosions of words. And he gave to Shakespeare one of his greatest themes (see Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth), the unrelenting forward march of fate—the fate men make—made manifest in the steady yet infinitely variable drumbeat of iambic pentameter. Like our own popular culture, Elizabethans relished extreme, aestheticized violence. Marlowe—a Hollywood director murdering half-naked teenagers in glorious technicolor—gives us a hero without mercy, who hangs slaughtered virgins from the walls of Damascus and in the same breathe praises love and beauty.

As any blockbuster sequel must, Part 2—its own play, although I'm reviewing them together—redoubles the violence and perversity of the original. Senseless violence is method and theme, meaninglessness the only meaning. There is no honor or nobility in Marlowe's world. Everyone believes that God is on their side, but God is on no one's side (in truth, it is hard for me to imagine that the man who wrote this play believed in God at all). Human emotions—love, grief, pride—are a species of madness. The play is unsatisfying on modern terms; it refuses to do much that we now expect a story to do. At the same time, as a landmark in the history of English theater and poetry, for the mesmerizing force of its verse, and as a study—still provocative today—of the utter inadequacy of religion in the face of war, the utter inadequacy of will in the face of death, Tamburlaine is well worth reading.

[Jonfaith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like his desire, lift upwards and divine

Tamburlaine is epic and merciless. Kit gave us an orientalist paen, but one woven with gilded verse, an elevating counterpoint to the interminable bloodshed. Marlowe’s canvas is vast, as the dying Tamburlaine commands: Give me a map. The extant world systems are pushed aside and the operating codes are knitted by circumstance. Each is left as ashes by the horde.

Each scene is but chapter of conquest. Diplomacy and fealty no longer mean exactly what they did previously. Nor does Faith.

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.

It is engaging to consider the effect of staging the exploits of the Scourge of God to an Elizabethan audience.

[Ivana Books Are Magic · Rating 4 out of 5]

Christopher Marlowe puzzles me, both as a historical figure and a writer. No matter how much I read about Marlowe, I never feel that I can quite put a finger on him. What do his plays mean? What are they trying to tell us? They seem to offer a multiple of meanings. Often violent and dark, they offer a grim version of the world. Many of them (including these two) are filled with ironical and satirical references and passages. It might be that this ambiguity of meaning is exactly what draw me in so forcefully while I was reading Tamburlaine I & II. Marlowe's verse is always beautifully eloquent and grimly potent, but it is the meaning behind it that truly captures me as a reader.

Death is almost a character of its own in this play. The boy shepherd that becomes a magnificent (larger than life) emperor Tamburlaine is reminiscent of Greek heroes and gods. Tamburlaine is simultaneously capable of both great cruelty and love. We can see this duality (manifested also as a stark contrast between death and life) repeated throughout these two plays. There are so many ways to read Marlowe's plays. Indeed, as I say that might be what attracts me to his writing. The dark sense of mystery that is hidden in his verses. Who was he really? What did he believe in? As a writer, Marlowe is equally perplexing as a historical person.

As mysterious as Marlowe's life was, some things we do know of him. Marlowe knew his classics. Both of these plays are filled with references to Greek and Roman classical epics. Obviously, Marlowe studied the great Latin and Greek poems and epics in detail. This play is extremely graphic in its violence. Not many epic battles take place on stage, mostly they are reflected upon and described. Tamburlaine eloquent monologues take much space in these two plays and not much space is left for the battles themselves. We typically witness either their start or aftermath. However, there are plenty of individual characters who kill themselves or get killed on stage in most violent of ways. Captured queens and kinds bashing their brains out and so on. It is interesting to think of what Marlowe was trying to accomplish with such violence imposed on such characters. Was he merely imitating the ancient Greeks and Romans? Was he merely giving the crowds what they wanted- the blood? I don't think so. I think his grim view of this world as a battle for power was reflected by his personal life experience. Marlowe had opportunity to witness religious wars of extreme violence, the potent sentiments and the mixing of sacred and profane in his lifetime. I think these two plays really capture his depressive view of the world as a place of constant war and violence. At times it almost seems like Marlowe was able to foreshadow his own violent death.

Tamburlaine was founded on a historical figure, but one belonging to an alien civilization. I think it could be said that while writing it, Marlowe was so quite free and inhibited in its imagination. Therefore, I think that what he really wrote about was England of his time. Tamburlaine is a fascinating character. Was Marlowe's Tamburlaine an atheist? Is that why he burned the Kuran? Was Marlowe himself one? It is hard to know for sure what atheist meant in those days, it could have just been a renunciation of church authorities. That being said, there are a lot of spiritual and religious references in these two plays. They capture an insecure and painful time in European history. I read these two plays twice because somehow I managed to mix up the pages and scenes while I was reading. Having just finished them, they are still merged in my mind. What I will say is that I enjoyed the part one a bit more. Without his beloved wife, Tamburlaine seems to pale away. It is as if he loses the reason for living. Without his beautiful queen, Tamburlaine is not complete. Moreover, it seems uncertain whether he wanted the many kingdoms for himself or to offer them to his wife. And that is what I find so interesting! Wouldn't it be surprising if the mastermind behind all these bloody and horrific conquests and events was in fact - a beautiful and intelligent woman?

[Sasha · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's the old rags to riches story, really - real America. An ambitious man, born with no spoon in his mouth, rises to power through sheer brilliant audacity. Spoilers follow: He even manages to marry the daughter of a rival of higher social class, after overcoming that rival. He's domineering, ruthless, abusive. He loves his wife but has no concept of her own desires; he thinks of her as a trophy. She was always ambivalent, and eventually she wastes away and dies. He's enraged:

The ceaseless lamps
That gently looked upon this loathsome earth
Shine downwards now no more, but deck the heavens
To entertain divine Zenocrate.

He has three sons; he disowns one who doesn't share his lust for power. He's the kind of guy who takes his sons hunting and insists they take a bite out of the beating heart of a deer. Here, he cuts his own arm:

Come boys and with your fingers search my wound,
And in my blood wash all your hands at once,
While I sit smiling to behold the sight.
Now my boys, what think you of a wound?

Just as he's about to reach the apogee of his career, he's struck down by cancer: all this conflict, and chance kills him.

And shall I die and this unconquered?

This is as American a piece as There Will Be Blood. Brutal, unsparing, and featuring Marlowe's unsubtle mastery of the epic line, it's nasty stuff. Nasty stuff.

[Ashleigh (a frolic through fiction) · Rating 2 out of 5]

*Rated 2.5/5 stars

Read this one for uni - not really my kind of thing, but I managed to get into the first half. It was interesting seeing the story of a tyrant, with no excuses made over his awfulness and his violence shown in full course. It's a brutal story, one full of bloody scenes, but it appears to show the harsh realities of war and conquering armies.
Sadly this seemed to be a tale of two halves - part one was built up wonderfully, with politic alliances and tensions fuelling the dialogue and relations between characters well established. But part two just seemed to throw in as many dramatic scenes as possible, almost verging on ridiculousness. I mean, one character convinces another to kill them by claiming they have ointment making them immune to such a wound? Not forgetting the armies and kings popping up and dying all over the show, with no real threat looming. It felt like a case of "how many dramatic, violent scenes can we throw in to shock the audience?" and ultimately just fell flat after all the carefully crafted build up from part one. It was a weird one...

[Sara · Rating 3 out of 5]

At last I have read Christopher Marlowe. I have almost a lifetime of intention to do so finally satisfied. The comparisons to (indeed even attempts to assign) Shakespeare’s plays make reading him seem important if not completely necessary, but I must say if this play is one to judge by, he cannot hold a candle to his contemporary and he is terribly unlikely to have given us Hamlet.

There is nothing subtle about Tamburlaine. He is a ruthless, ungodly, blood-thirsty tyrant, and it is hard to see any point to the discourse beyond the meanest man usually wins. Tamburlaine certainly did, over and over again.

I did not find any touch of greatness in this play, although it has a pleasant cadence and is well-constructed. I have now read Marlowe. I am satisfied that I will not do it again.

[Jesús De la Jara · Rating 4 out of 5]

"TAMERLÁN EL GRANDE" de Cristopher Marlowe
"¡Guarda tu honor! ¡Pues hace mucho no sabías lo que quería decir!"
Estoy muy feliz de haber terminado esta obra que consta de dos partes (la segunda a pedido del público) pues ya puedo decir que he leído todas las tragedias de este gran dramaturgo isabelino.
La obra nos narra de una manera sucinta y veloz la historia de Tamerlán, el pastor escita (un pueblo bárbaro), que llegó a convertirse en Rey de Persia y asoló diversas ciudades de África y Asia. Este ascenso no es de ninguna manera pacífico, Tamerlán es muy despiadado y su ira no tendrá límites, humillando de la peor manera a reyes y sacrificando vidas inocentes. Me gustó mucho por la cantidad de acción que entra en escena en sus distintos espacios geográficos, la pintura, digamos, de la crueldad de este rey y las órdenes militares permanentes hacia sus grandes generales como Terídamas, Téqueles y Usuncasan. La caída y el auge de los imperios a través de las escenas también me gustaron. Un día victorioso otro derrotado, y a pesar de la crueldad y salvajismo de Tamerlaán, Marlowe hace ver el comportamiento de su bando, cómo por más que sea como es, tiene una corte de aduladores, una esposa fiel y unos generales dispuestos a dar su vida por la gloria del reino. A veces las perspectivas individuales pueden engañar.
Aunque el estilo no sea el más depurado y algunos parlamentos no sean bien logrados la acción y la intensidad de la historia me hacen valorarla muy bien.
Luego de leer a Marlowe tengo otro panorama del teatro isabelino y compruebo que su nivel es tan o superior al neoclásico francés.

[Danilo Scardamaglio · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lo spregiudicato, maledetto, dissoluto ed avventuroso Marlowe non avrebbe potuto incarnarsi in un personaggio più che nel suo Tamerlano, il grande condottiero vissuto nel XIV secolo, colui che assoggettò quasi interamente l'Asia ai suoi piedi, salvo morire improvvisamente nel suo apogeo. Nella tragedia, tuttavia, di verosimiglianza storica ce n'è ben poca: le battaglie che combatte Tamerlano sono perlopiù contro re immaginari, o decontestualizzati dal periodo storico in cui realmente regnarono, così come i suoi fedeli amici vassalli son di fantasia. La tragedia è imperniata sulla figura di Tamerlano, ira e flagello di Dio: bramoso di sangue e di potere, avido, intelligente ed astuto, ambizioso e persuasore, amato dalla fortuna e dagli dei, che non teme di sfidare e provocare. Qui si catalizza l'ateismo di Marlowe, nell'amoralità sfrenata di Tamerlano, nella sua mancanza totale di magnanimità verso i re nemici e le popolazioni ostili, nell'assenza di divina bontà nelle vicende belliche. Se il personaggio di Tamerlano appare così complesso, così ben strutturato, i personaggi restanti sono incredibilmente inconsistenti, maschere vere e proprie, prive di alcuno scavo psicologico. In realtà l'intera tragedia di Marlowe è vuota di profondità e introspettività, risultando completamente incentrata sull'azione, sugli sberleffi e le battaglie tra i re, tra continue sfide e provocazioni, sulla megalomania di Tamerlano. Tutto ciò è tracciato dallo stile ampolloso, magniloquente e baroccheggiante di Marlowe, pieno di complesse metafore e circonlocuzioni: un gusto letterario e stilistico completamente distante dal nostro. Inoltre, lo stile sfiorisce ed appiattisce ulteriormente la fisionomia dei personaggi, ma anche intere scene e monologhi: chiaro esempio la fine di Tamerlano. Nel complesso tuttavia è una tragedia godibile, a tratti anche molto divertente.

[Fred Jenkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

"And 'tis a pretty toy to be a poet"

I picked this up after reading Greenblatt's Dark Renaissance. I read Doctor Faustus and some the translations of Ovid a very long time ago, but nothing else. Tamburlaine seemed a good place to start. I actually read it in the Penguin Complete Plays, not this edition.

The poetry is often very good, quite vigorous, once you settle into Marlowe's idiom. Tamburlaine is bombastic, vainglorious, arrogant, and bloodthirsty. A successful miles gloriosus. If it were a Greek tragedy, he would have encountered Nemesis in a spectacular end, but it isn't.

Much of the play consists of alternating scenes of Tamburlaine and his lieutenants, and his rival emperors and theirs, negotiating, plotting war, going to war, punishing the losers with savage torments. Then there are the interludes of Tamburlaine's successful courtship of Xenocrate and Theridamas' tragically unsuccessful one of Olympia. Tamburlaine's rage at the heavens over Xenocrate's death is perhaps the only point one feels much sympathy for him. His own death ends the play, death from illness rather than war. An ordinary death, almost anticlimactic. "For Tamburlaine, the scourge of God, must die."

Throughout we find a mishmash of Greco-Roman mythology, Christianity, and Islam. The same character will alternately invoke Jove and Mohammed. Probably not a problem for Marlowe who was not much of a believer by all accounts. There are frequent references to mythology, sometimes a bit random. And the occasional allusion to classical literature, as at Part Two, 2.3.14-15:

Now shall his barbarous body be a prey
To beasts and fowls.

αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλωρία τεῦχε κύνεσσιν
οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι
Homer, Iliad 1.4-5

Although only the more educated viewers might have picked that up. The groundlings in the pit may have thought of Psalm 79.2:

They have given the bodies of your servants as food for the birds of the air,
and the flesh of your faithful ones to the beasts of the field.

or even Jeremiah 7.33. Although I suspect Marlowe spent more time on Homer than the Bible. What did any individual take from Marlowe or any text? Everyone takes different bits and we all end up with different readings.

[David Sarkies · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Rise and Fall of a Conqueror
16 January 2014

I was going to have a look at both of these plays as a whole, but it appears that both of these plays are in fact a ten act play divided into two parts. This seemed to also be something of a debate with some of Shakespeare's plays, however the ones that are in two, or three, parts (actually, there is only Henry IV in two parts, and Henry VI in three parts, and it could be argued that all of these plays form one continuous play from Richard II to Richard III) seem to have their own internal consistency, of which this play seems to lack. In some cases it could be argued that some of the acts are superfluous as it appears that they are simply a bunch of kings making a stand against Tamburlaine, claiming that their army is bigger than his army, and then getting resoundingly defeated by Tamburlaine, and thus starting all over again.

However, it could be argued that both of these plays do have an internal consistency, with the first play looking at the rise of Tamburlaine's power, which concludes with him standing on top of his conquests claiming to be prepared to move out and conquer the rest of the world, and part two dealing with his demise, as he becomes more and more caught up in his own sense of pride and self worth that he steps over the line by burning a copy of the Alcoran, and making mockery of the Muslim god by claiming that if he existed, why did he allow Tamburlaine so many victories.

The play was based on a real person named Timur, and you can read about him here (on Wikipedia). Timur is probably not one of the best known of the conquers (unlike figures such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Genghis Khan) and that is probably because he did not pose mush of a threat to Europe. In fact his war against Bayezid the Turk, who was attacking the Balkans and other parts of Eastern Europe (though Constantinople was still in the hands of the Byzantines at the time), is probably why Timur is considered a popular figure in European History. The other thing about Timur (or Tamurlaine) was that he was from central Asia and was only attempting to follow in the footsteps of Genghis Kahn (of which he failed, when you consider the extent of Genghis Kahn's territory and Timur's territory). He was also seen as being responsible for basically returning Persia, and much of the Middle East, to the stone age, as well as pretty much wiping out most, if not all, of the Nestorian Church (though you must admit that the American adventures in the Middle East in recent times have also assisted in that task).

Anyway, this is a map of Timur's empire:



and this is a picture of Timur himself:



It is interesting though how certain characters are seen differently under a different light. Here Tamurlaine is being painted in a light that is not all that bad, though we must also remember that Marlowe's version does not necessarily have Timur portrayed in the light of a hero, but rather as a conquerer that inevitably overstepped the natural boundaries, in relation to believing he was better than god. Also note that Marlowe uses the Alcoran as the means of his downfall as opposed to the Bible, despite Islam being considered an alien, and in some cases an enemy, culture to that of the Europeans. While this is a broad generalisation, remember that for a period of around four hundred years Europe were sending troops to the Middle East in an attempt to capture Jerusalem, and while the first couple were, to an extent, successful, they began to wane in popularity and effect as time drew on (probably because most of the capable fighting men had been killed off in the first couple of invasions, and also probably because the inhabitants of the Levant had become more prepared in the face of further crusades).

As for the play, and this is the case with many of the plays around this time, the story has been borrowed either from legend or history. Marlowe is doing the same thing that Shakespeare would go on to do with his great tragedies: take a little known character and little known story and turn it into a great play. Notice that it is Hamlet and the Scottish Play that are his most famous, and while they are based upon historical characters and events, they are such minor occurrences that most of us would not realise that these plays have actually been inspired by true stories (in the Hollywood sense of the phrase, of course).

[Davis Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though Marlowe's abilities have often been somewhat exaggerated, it must be admitted that this is perhaps the finest non-Shakespearean Elizabethan play. The verse sings forth with unbridled vigor, and though the plot is so sprawling so as to verge on overblown tedium, it makes for an absorbing read. And though there's not much in it that can't also be found in, say, Richard III, the monstrous spectacle of Tamburlaine himself is surely one of the most interesting characters in 16th century literature. Is Marlowe playing into the neuroses of the budding Age of Exploration and the English Reformation through him? Is the play a herald of the shattering of the medieval world picture by unrooted tumult, in not dissimilar fashion to the World Wars? Although there's a lot of campy melodrama, there are surprisingly rich questions at play here.

[Moira]

Marlowe, if there is an afterlife, and we both wind up in the same place, I'm going to put the hurt on you for having written this. Because I had to read it FOUR HUNDRED YEARS LATER.

[Alp Turgut · Rating 4 out of 5]

Karakterleri ve olay örgüsüyle belki de en olgun Christopher Marlowe oyunu olan "Büyük Timurlenk I-II / Tamburlaine, The Great I-II", dramatik yapısıyla en azından finaline kadar ağırlığına koruyan Shakespeare’le yarışacak derecede başarılı epik bir oyun örneği. İlk yarısıyla Timur’un yükselişini konu alan "Timurlenk I"i aslında "Bayezid I" tragedyası olarak adlandırmak daha doğru olabilir. Mısır Kralı’nın kızı Zenocrate’i esir alan Timurlenk’in Pers imparatoru Mycetes’in kardeşi Cosroe’yla bir olarak imparatoru yendiği oyunda Cosroe’yiu de saf dışı bırakarak imparatorluk koltuğuna oturan çılgın bir lideri tanıma şansı buluyoruz. Ardından tüm hızıyla Bayezid’ı yenen Timur’un esir düşen sultanı ayaklık olarak kullanması ve Bayezid’ın başını zindan demirlerine vurarak intihar etmesi oyunun tragedya olarak zirvesini oluşturuyor.

İkinci bölümüyle diğer tragedyalardan farklı bir karakter düşüşüne tanıklık ettiğimizi söyleyebilirim ki oyunun en büyük problemi de buradan kaynaklanıyor. Karşısında birleşen tüm düşmanlarını yenmeye devam eden karakterin oğullarından birini korkak diye öldürmesiyle Marlowe, karakterin deliliğini gözler önüne sürüyor. En son Kur’an’a küfredecek kadar ileri giderek kendini Tanrı ilan eden Timur’un hasta olarak ölmesi ise ne yazık ki tragedyayı yeterince vurucu yapamıyor. Burada tabii problemin nedeni olay örgüsünden çok seçilen tarihi kişilik. Sonuçta karakterin gerçekte de başına gelen bunlar. Buna rağmen, epik sahneleri ve karakterin finale kadar yaptıklarıyla okuduğum en keyifli ve en güçlü Marlowe eseri olan "Büyük Timurlenk I-II" oyununun kesinlikle okunması gereken güçlü İngiliz oyunlarından biri olduğunu düşünüyorum. Tam notum: 4,5/5.

İstanbul, Türkiye
02.06.2019

Alp Turgut

http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...

[Keith · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s hard not to get swept up in the military triumphalism of this heroic epic, particularly Part One. Tamburlaine the shepherd uses his wit and audacious ambition to rise to emperor, smashing the existing order and tearing down the nobility in the process.

As with all his plays, Marlowe skirts the border of revolutionary unorthodoxy. A commoner rising up to be king – that was a dangerous theme in days of the tyrannical monarchy. And this play takes glee in the destruction of the nobility and the recognition of one for his or her own merits (however cruel and diabolical they are).

Part One is one of greatest plays and greatest pieces of literature in the English language. It’s a book I will re-read as long as I live. And the language, although bombastic in places, is beautiful. Marlowe is one of the few authors to compete with Shakespeare in the skill and beauty of his figurative language.

“What is beauty, saith my sufferings, then?
If all the pens that ever poets held
Had fed the feeling of their masters' thoughts,
And every sweetness that inspir'd their hearts,
Their minds, and muses on admired themes;
If all the heavenly quintessence they still
From their immortal flowers of poesy,
Wherein, as in a mirror, we perceive
The highest reaches of a human wit;
If these had made one poem's period,
And all combin'd in beauty's worthiness,
Yet should their hover in their restless heads
One thought, one grace, one wonder, at the least,
Which into words no virtue can digest.” (Part 1, Act V, Sc. 1)

I highly recommend Part One to anyone who enjoys Shakespeare and rich, figurative language. It is a tour de force that is hard to put down.

[Nina · Rating 3 out of 5]

What can describe this book if not the infinite wars, murders and the protagonist's cruelty?
From the first act, the figure of Tamerlan is not a good one, although he's a shepard's son, he becomes the most feared man in Europe, Asia and Africa.
Given his cruelty, I couldn't believe he was serious about Zenocrate and I was pleasantly surprise to see that he actually cared for her and would even give his life for her. How can such a man love and hate at such intensities? From my point of view, Marlowe created an antithesis in this character and I would have liked it more if it hadn't been so obvious. I would have liked to pull it out from the story. Still, I read the play with curiosity although I was sure about the ending, even though it was strange that he died all of a sudden, exactly after burning the sacred Muslim books and defying the gods.
Another odd thing is the fact that as you read the play, his character and personality are more and more contoured. I think (I'm not sure) that only in the second part he considers and describes himself as the Whip of God and although he kills continuously, he believes that he serves a God of Revenge from Heaven. That is a strange combination that puts your mind to work..
All in all, it is a pretty good play, maybe too much axed on killings and cruelty (reminds me of a Romanian short story about a tyrant in which things happen almost in the same way - "Alexandru Lapusneanu" by Costache Negruzzi).

[Sasha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Part 1 was better than part 2, I felt. There are only so many times you can reinforce how great Tamburlaine is before it becomes rather repetitive. This play is different from other war-themed works in that both Tamburlaine's thirst for blood and his violent spirit is indefatigable. In fact, I even find him admirable, the way he will not sideline his honor for Zenocrate's love when she asks him to pity her hometown. His resolve is praise-worthy. In the Iliad, at first, the graphic violence is sickening. However, I think I'm becoming immune to it. Thus I wouldn't, for example, cover my eyes at the fact that two characters "brain themselves" on the same page (quite literally: to bang their heads against something until their brains come out). I'm starting to enjoy tragedies and the theme of war. The concept of honor is quite alluring. And now, the thought of romance novels, sickens me.

[Michael P. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Do not even consider using this cheap edition of Marlowe’s great play. Marlowe experts do not need it, and Marlowe students need far more in the way of an introduction, glosses, textual apparatus, and other notes. It has the “mighty line”s, but it lacks everything that helps people understand Marlowe 400 years after he wrote. Use the Revels or New Mermaid instead. This edition is fine if you already understand Marlowe and need something for an airplane that you can discard when you reach your destination.

[Charles · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just love this play. Like 'Doctor Faustus', Tamburlaine is essentially a 'one-man play'. However, while it lacks the subtle characterization that made Shakespeare so great, Tamb. is an exceptional 'de Casibus' Tragedy that will delight all those who give 'Marlowe's Mighty Line' the attention it deserves.

Let there be no mistake about it, Tamb. is pride personified. The scourge of the gods and the terror of the world, as he terms himself, abides by a strict code of war ethics and lets nothing stand in his way of his conquests. Part One concerns both his martial conquests and his 'conquest' of Zenocrate. Although in the beginning the reader is not sure whether Tamb. sees Zen. as just another prize or as his eternal love, their mutual feelings for each other are made obvious (even though their physical beauty did them a lot of merit). Tamb.'s looks make a city surrender, while Zen.'s makes the heavens envy her. Part One is also concerned with the weak monarchy of Mycetes. Cosroe betrayed his brother Mycetes but Tamb. betrayed Cosroe. All is fair in love and war, after all. No brief summary can do this play any justice though, and I'll leave it at that.

What is important to note is that in the tradition of any 'de Casibus tragedy', Marlowe explores not just the historical figure and his exploits (that is Tamir, Tamburlaine in this play, who was responsible for the death of 5% of the whole world) but also his moral virtues. It is true that Tamb. did win a "fatal victory" (as Zen. terms the triumphs of war) over "the High and Highest Monarch of the World" that is Bajazeth and his obese empress wife, Zabina. However, his cruel and perverse treatment of them was a fate worse than death. It was such a humiliating experience for them that they committed a most bloody suicide. Zen. curses her "wretched eyes" when she sees them dead. Even though Bajazeth was not particularly amiable, nonetheless his love for his wife, and equally his wife's love for him, did humanize their characters. It makes the reader notice that Bajazeth's love for his wife, and both their desire to remain together even after death parts them, was much more real and much more gratifying than the love one 'experiences' with a random Turkish concubine.

The same goes for Tamb.'s unmerciful and symbolical killings of the Damascus virgins. The fifth act is in fact termed as one of the most complex in Elizabethan drama, and I agree wholeheartedly. Even in such a case, where one is predisposed to loathe Tamb., Marlowe give Tamb.'s pride some tragic structure. The attentive reader will notice that it was the Governor of Damascus who really was responsible. He (the governor) knew all too well Tamb. strict adherence to the code of war (being unmerciful especially to the besieged) but he still sent them anyway. By technicality, Tamb. was faultless, he did what any respectful conqueror had to do. However, that is not what the reader thinks and this is what is important. The reader condemns Tamb., and Marlowe is aware of this this. What Marlowe does, most brilliantly in my opinion, is to make Tamb. unaware of his 'immorality' (if we disregard the war code), Tamb. is happy that he had won, and thinks that only Jove's throne remains for him to conquer. Tamb. is oblivious to the grief that Zen., and the reader, felt for the besieged, the virgins of Damascus and Bajazeth and Zabina's suicide. All of these presented to Zen. 'A thousand sorrows to her martyred soul'. Tamb. thinks of Zen. as his muse who 'adds more courage to his conquering mind'.

In my opinion, Part 2 is equally as sublime as Part One. Many dimensions to Tamb.'s character are explored, including his treatment of his three sons. The death of "That effeminate brat" (Tamb.'s words not mine) Calyphas by his own father is a reminder that Tamb. abides by his war code no matter what. I do not wish to explain Part Two more than I have to, but the burning of the Alcoran by Tamb., and the illnes that quickly plagued him, is Marlowe's own way of bringing justice to the unmerciful tyrant. Even in death, Tamb. was still obsessed over what he might conquer; "And shall I die and this unconquered?". The question remains whether or not, despite his immorality, Tamb. was a bad person as he was only doing his duty as conqueror. My Opinion? Well, I think that ,like Doctor Faustus, Tamb. was overwhelmed by ambition and he tested fortune too much for comfort. He once wisely advised his son Amyras not to test fortune, but that is what exactly what Tamb. did when he burned the alcoran. Tamb. went one step too far, though it was not the burning of the alcoran that really matters (as I think Marlowe would have said).

'Tamburlaine' is a unique play that managed to entertain its sixteenth century audience without a heavy reliance on theatrical effects (indeed, even the admiring Marlowe critic Swinburne said that it is 'monotonous', saved only by its sublime poetical verse). I can proudly and admiringly say that it is still engaging more than 400 years afterwards. It is not only a scholarly delight ,for it is a very 'structured' play, but also an entertaining piece of poetry in its own right.

[Bettie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Duration: 2 hours

blurb - A new production of Christopher Marlowe's 16th century play about the growth to tyrannical power of a Scythian shepherd. Tamburlaine is a classic drama said to have changed the course of British drama and to have influenced the young Shakespeare. This is the first in a series of three plays from Radio 3 which portray the ruthlessness and dilemmas of absolute rule.

Cast:
Tamburlaine ..... Con O'Neill
Mycetes, King of Persia ..... Oliver Ford Davis
Cosroe ..... Kenneth Cranham
Techelles ..... Shaun Prendergast
Theridamas ..... Ewan Bailey
Zenocrate ..... Susie Riddell
Zabina ..... Noma Dumezweni
Bajazeth ..... Danny Sapani
Agydas ..... Joseph Kloska
Sultan ..... Edward de Souza
Usumcasane ..... Don Gilet
Ortygius ..... Paul Stonehouse
Meander ..... Patrick Brennan
Menaphon ..... Bob Blythe
King Of Morocco ..... Patrice Naiambana
Anippe ..... Stephanie Racine
Ebea ..... Eleanor Crooks
2nd Virgin ..... Sarah Thom
Bassoe ..... Will Howard
Attendant ..... Adam Nagaitis

Original music composed and performed by Nicolai Abrahamsen.

Director......Peter Kavanagh.



From wiki: Tamburlaine the Great is a play in two parts by Christopher Marlowe. It is loosely based on the life of the Central Asian emperor, Timur "the lame". Written in 1587 or 1588, the play is a milestone in Elizabethan public drama; it marks a turning away from the clumsy language and loose plotting of the earlier Tudor dramatists, and a new interest in fresh and vivid language, memorable action, and intellectual complexity. Along with Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy, it may be considered the first popular success of London's public stage.

Timur the Lame (Reign: 1370–1405)envisioned the restoration of the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan. Unlike his predecessors Timur was also a devout Muslim and referred to himself as the Sword of Islam. His armies were inclusively multi-ethnic and multicultural. During his lifetime Timur would emerge as the most powerful ruler in the Muslim world after defeating the formidable Mamluks of Egypt and Syria, the emerging Ottoman Empire and the declining Sultanate of Delhi; Timur had also decisively defeated the Knights Hospitaler at Smyrna and since then referred to himself as a Ghazi. By the end of his reign Timur had also gained complete suzerainty over all the remnants of the Chagatai Khanate, Ilkhanate, Golden Horde and even the Yuan Khanate.

A forensic facial reconstruction of Timur by M. Gerasimov (1941).

Gruesome breakfast listening which didn't do much for me, however I will happily add an extra star for the play's place in history

[Peter Heavenheld · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nature, that fram'd us of four elements
Warring within our breasts for regiment,
Doth teach us all to have aspiring minds:
Our souls, whose faculties can comprehend
The wondrous architecture of the world,
And measure every wandering planet's course,
Still climbing after knowledge infinite,
And always moving as the restless spheres,
Will us to wear ourselves, and never rest, Act II Sc 5

Tamburlaine, a commoner, starts out by winning skirmishes against the King of Persia, then goes on to greater and greater conquests in his Mongol-Middle Eastern homeland. He seems invincible and comes to imagine himself a god. Along the way, he besieges cities, destroys armies (though always off-stage) and marries an Egyptian pharaoh’s daughter.

The heroic magnificence of Tamburlaine's greatness is superb. Part I is very good (though a tragic end is yet to come), but Part II disintegrates into pointless martial speeches and sieges (the father-sons relationship is nonetheless well-handled). The end is rather unheroic and undramatic.

Highlights: brilliant poetry throughout, richer mythical allusions than even Shakespeare, good characterisations, but alas little character development (we must remember how young Marlowe was when he wrote this, his best was yet to come). On the less impressive side, every personage is prone to grand, bombastic outbursts, and at the end Tamburlaine is still just a killing machine, there is no essence to him, no motivation to his ambition, it just feeds on its own success.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really that should be 4 1/2 stars. I give it five because of the language which I love and often find exhilarating. Yet I cannot help wondering why such language has been lavished upon an egotistical schweinhund about whom I care no more at the end than at the beginning. Read it especially for the language.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bold (and unapologetically so) play which breaks the rules, and subverts its audience's expectations. Its been said that you can sense the confidence of Marlowe in its characters and speeches, and I definitely agree. A limit-stretching, wild play with some brilliant lines.

[Erin · Rating 5 out of 5]

And then she brains herself. Best stage direction ever.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

From BBC Radio 3:
Christopher Marlowe's 16th century play about the growth to power of a Scythian shepherd.

[Reza · Rating 5 out of 5]

واقعاً اینجاست که نمایش انگلیسی متولد میشه. اینجاست که بالاخره یک شخصیت واقعی به دنیا میاد. این نمایش در ذات واقع‌گرایانه‌اش بیشتر به رمان نزدیکه تا هر نمایشی که قبلش بوده. به نظرم با اختلاف از دکتر فاستوس بهتره و حتی هملت به سختی ازش پیشی می‌گیره.

[annabel]

hi, zookeeper here! will you guys stop braining yourself on the bars of the cage? thanks!

[Nicholas Whyte · Rating 4 out of 5]

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2715075.html

This is usually discussed as a single play in two parts, and I guess I agree with that, though it is notable that the two parts are set at least twenty years apart - the first ends with Tamburlaine marrying Zenocrate, by the start of the second they have three grown-up sons. I felt it had a tremendous energy; lots of violence and horrible death, a portrait of a monstrous leader who in the end is defeated not by battle but by illness. It's deliberately over the top, I think, and Shakespeare makes fun of the line "Holla ye pampered jades of Asia!" addressed by Tamburlaine to two captive kings harnessed to his chariot (in Henry IV part 2 II.iv).

A lot of commentators try to read Marlowe's own views into Tamburlaine, in particular extrapolating his supposed atheism from the scene in Part Two where Tamburlaine burns the Koran. It seemed pretty clear to me that this scene is about Tamburlaine breaking faith with his own former religion, just as he has broken faith with the Christian rulers in the first act and with his insufficiently violent son Calyphas, and we should not mistake the views and actions of the character for those of the author. That's not to say that Marlowe was not an atheist, just that I don't find this scene convincing evidence that he was (whereas I do find the opening scene of Dido convincing evidence that he was very comfortable with man-boy love).

I'm perfectly satisfied with Tamburlaine as a new form of entertainment rather than a political statement. This was apparently the first attempt to do an epic in blank verse; there's also vast amounts of conflict and spectacle - defeated opponents killed in various gory ways, Tamburlaine himself as a dominant character and aspirant force of nature, attempting to shape the world to his own liking and ultimately defeated not by Man but by entropy. It made Edward Alleyn's reputation when first produced. (It didn't make William Shatner's reputation, though he appeared in a Broadway production in 1956 as Tamburlaine's hanger-on Usumcasane.)

I've long been fascinated by the real Timur, and hope that some day I will be able to visit his tomb in Samarkand. Needless to say, Marlowe's narrative bears only the vaguest resemblance to the real history of his subject. Unlike Dido, where I think there's a didactic point about taking the Æneid and adding to it rather than varying, the point here is invention rather than history.

[Rozonda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tamburlaine inspired two very different works of art: These plays and Tamerlan, the poem by Allan Poe. In both, the bloody shepherd-turned-emperor is humanised by his grief for a beloved's death (in Poe's poem, a shepherdess he grew up with, Ada; in this play, Zenocrate, an Egyptian princess he held captive)

Tamburlaine resonates and echoes all over Shakespeare; parodied in Henry IV, imitated in Henry VI, mirrored (badly in my opinion)in Titus Andronicus, that grand guignol of a play. It could be due to the fact that the bombastic style of the hero, who rapes, tortures, kills (even his own son) and ties kings to his chariot, is very attractive, but nevertheless he is not as human as other Marlowe's characters. Probably it is intentional; after Zenocrate's death all humanity leaves Tamburlaine, who becomes a rambling murderous maniac.

[H]

This strikes me as curiously indulgent popular theater. An awful, bombastic hero who meets no just end. Presented by Marlowe with an admirable subtlety. The sympathies we feel for Tamburlaine can be compared to those we feel for Richard III.

This laid the groundwork for dramatic blank verse. I enjoyed the technique of having Zenocrate & Zabina (queens of opposing sides) bickering on stage to mark a battle's passage of time. Bajazeth's and Zabina's suicides surprised me. Zabina's mad reeling from verse into prose works to great effect.

ZENOCRATE: Earth cast up fountains from thy entrails,
And wet thy cheeks for their untimely deaths:
Shake with their weight in sign of fear and grief...

[Davide Nole · Rating 4 out of 5]

OH! Finalmente Marlowe!
Allora: le due parti di questa sorta di dramma storico/tragedia/NonSoComeSiaConsiderato fanno a pugni con quanto letto prima dell'autore. Si distaccano tanto da Didone (che ricordo ho trovato oscena) ma anche dal Faust (che trovo molto bello), sia per linguaggio che per temi trattati.
Per quanto mi aspettassi una sorta di polpettone storico con lo spessore di un foglio di carta, atto solo a far emozionare gli spettatori dell'epoca, ho scoperto un dramma ricco di sfaccettature e di aperture verso i nuovi (all'epoca) orizzonti che il teatro avrebbe preso. Oltre alla profondita`, non mancano colpi di scena alla "OMIODIO" che non fanno mai male quando si parla di politica mongola...