Tamburlaine the Great Part I

Tamburlaine the Great #1

by Christopher Marlowe

Considered second only to William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe's romantic tragedy Tamburlaine the Great tells the story of a Mongolian warrior's relentless rise to power and eventual downfall. This, the first part, focuses on Tamburlaine's rise to power.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Classics, Fiction, Historical Fiction, Tragedy, School

92 pages, 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

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1587, about the time the twenty-four year old Shakespeare came to London, dreaming of success in the theatre, Christopher Marlowe—Cambridge educated, only six weeks his senior—lit up the Elizabethan stage with the first great play of the era,the first part of Tamburlaine the Great.

At this time when the English heart was full of thoughts of conquest and of empire--the Spanish Armada nearly complete, the first English child recently born on American soil--Marlowe offered the English a magnificent and exotic image of a Conqueror: Timur the Lame, whose 14th century empire stretched from Turkey, the Levant, and India into Russia and Central Asia.

Less episodic than the Elizabethan plays that preceded it, Tamburlaine Part I is still more pageant than plot, an unabashed celebration of ruthless ambition and the will to power. Structurally, it is as comedy, for it concludes with the marriage of Tamberlaine and the Princess Zenocrate, but it is a comedy filled with martial slaughter, the murder of innocent maidens (their corpses displayed upon a wall), and the torture and death of many kings, the last of whom—Bejazeth, whom Tamburlaine uses as a footstool—dashes out his brains in desperate suicide against the bars of his cage.

But what proud poetry! What a suberb use of language! True, Marlowe's verse is limited in range, for it is always magniloquent, fit only for imperial purposes. But where such language is required, the results are magnificent.

Here are three excerpts. First, Tamburlaine and his generals exult in the conquest of Persia

TAMBURLAINE: Is it not passing brave to be a king,
And ride in triumph through Persepolis?

TECHELLES. O, my lord, it is sweet and full of pomp!

USUMCASANE. To be a king is half to be a god.

THERIDAMAS. A god is not so glorious as a king:
I think the pleasure they enjoy in heaven,
Cannot compare with kingly joys in earth;--
To wear a crown enchas'd with pearl and gold,
Whose virtues carry with it life and death;
To ask and have, command and be obey'd;
When looks breed love, with looks to gain the prize,--
Such power attractive shines in princes' eyes.

Here Tamburlaine speaks to his dying rival Chosroes of the sweetness of a crown (and, I think, reveals something about Marlowe's own "aspiring mind). This also sounds much like Shakespeare's Richard of Gloucester, but Richard would not be created for three or four years:

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,
Until we reach the ripest fruit of all,
That perfect bliss and sole felicity,
The sweet fruition of an earthly crown.

Here a messenger explains to the Soldan of Egypt the significance of the changing colors of Tamburlaine's tents when he besieges a city:

The first day when he pitcheth down his tents,
White is their hue, and on his silver crest
A snowy feather spangled-white he bears,
To signify the mildness of his mind,
That, satiate with spoil, refuseth blood:
But, when Aurora mounts the second time,
As red as scarlet is his furniture;
Then must his kindled wrath be quench'd with blood,
Not sparing any that can manage arms:
But, if these threats move not submission,
Black are his colours, black pavilion;
His spear, his shield, his horse, his armour, plumes,
And jetty feathers, menace death and hell;
Without respect of sex, degree, or age,
He razeth all his foes with fire and sword.

[Hal · Rating 3 out of 5]

if i had seen this in 1587 i would’ve lost my mind

[Olivia-Savannah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Repetitive, boring and violent. That's it. I didn't really care about all these wars and conquering and crownings. It would've been better if there was a single character I cared about but nope. None. So yeah, not my play >.>

Read for university.

[David Sarkies · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Ascension of an Emperor
11 January 2014

Despite both of these plays being published together in the same year I felt that what I would do would look at them both individually as I read them and then look at both of them together once I had finished them. However, the difficulty with doing that with this play is that unlike the Shakespearian plays (such as Henry IV part 1 and Henry IV part 2) these two plays seem to exist together, with the first part documenting Tamburline's rise, and the second part documenting his fall. However the tragedy in and off itself works in two parts, and the tragic hero in this play is none other than Tamburline. The other concern that I have is that by the time I get to write about both of the plays I may have forgotten what I was actually going to write and how to join them together.

As mentioned this play documents the rise of Tamburlaine from a simple goatherd from the plains of Scythia to becoming the emperor of the Middle East. The play opens with the king of Persia being declared Emperor after his army had just sacked India, however one of the reasons for this is because Tamburlaine was a part of his army. However Tamburlaine, who is a cunning general, ends up turning on the emperor of Persia and defeating him and taking his place. However, he is not satisfied at simply taking Persia and moves west to capture Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, and Arabia. The play then ends with him standing victorious, but looking further West with the dream of conquering and becoming Emperor of Europe.

The thing that I remembered about this play is that there are scenes (I think about two acts worth) where the emperor of Turkey is being carted around in a cage, as if he were an animal. However, I suspect that there is some idea behind this in that what Tamburlaine represents is a reversal. He is a goatherd become emperor, and the other kings, the ones that have arrayed against him, as they are defeated the situation is reversed so that they go from being emperors to little more than animals. In fact, in once scene we have the emperor of Turkey bash himself to death against the cage, and another scene has a king commit suicide at the fear of going from a powerful monarch to a prisoner.

We see this even in our world as well, such as the suicides that occur when there is a stockmarket crash and a billionaire is turned into a destitute. This is the idea of the bankers throwing themselves out of windows in 1929 because they had lost all of their money, or the German millionaire who threw himself in front of a train because he could not handle the idea of living penniless. In a way it goes to show how much of an idea wealth and power can being when somebody will actually commit suicide when that idol deserts them, and in fact when they realise that all of their hopes and dreams were built on nothing more than shifting sands.

[Lauren · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Zenocrate, why are you in love with this gigantic asshole?" - me, throughout the entire play

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tangerine, girl, what are you doing

[Robin · Rating 3 out of 5]

targaryen sure is a play

[Amber · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Our life is frail, and we may die today."

[Brett Birdwell]

Marlowe the Early Modern Mac Miller.

[Lexie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I struggled to get through this one. It quickly becomes predictably repetitive and I was bored rather than impressed by the ease with which Tamburlaine continually emerged victorious. I found Tamburlaine to be a very one-dimensional character whose lack of emotion was ridiculous, making him hard to admire despite the incessant praise he receives from other characters. (How can they not see what a complete psychopath he is?!) I can only hope that in part two he receives the punishment his remorselessness deserves since I won't be reading to find out. The only redeeming feature is the language. Marlowe's verse is intensely beautiful and his metaphors are expressive and vivid. I particularly enjoyed the bitterness and emotion portrayed through Bajazeth and Zabina's curses and lamentations. Also, their fates were amongst some of the most dramatically macabre and inventive I have encountered in the genre (as well as being about the only thing that actually happens in the play).

[Tesla]

astounded by Marlowe's capability to enthrall a Christian crowd with a Muslim protagonist

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tamburlaine is not a play best appreciated by young people. This insight may seem absurd. With its emphasis on war and fighting, and its long bragging speeches, this may well seem like a young man’s play.

I only know that I never especially enjoyed Tamburlaine in my youth. While it may deal with war, this is a stage production, and reproducing battles was never going to be possible. Hence the fighting takes place off-stage. Only four deaths are shown. Two of them are suicides, and the other two are men dying from injuries that we never saw inflicted.

To make up for the absence of action scenes on stage, Christopher Marlowe provides long descriptive passages about the events that we cannot see. It is this which may try the patience of younger readers. The speeches may seem contrived, artificial and bombastic, while being packed with allusions that are unfamiliar to the reader.

Coming back to it in later years with a greater knowledge of literature and Elizabethan drama, I feel better able to enjoy the beauty of Marlowe’s blank verse. I understand more of the now-archaic words that Marlowe used, or can tease the meaning out of others. I also recognise more of the allusions to Greek mythology than before.

The play deals with the rise and rise of a Scythian shepherd called Tamburlaine. At the start of the play he has already become a powerful leader. He captures the Egyptian king’s daughter, Zenocrate. He successfully woos Cosroe, the brother of the Persian Emperor, Mycetes to join him, and also a number of Mycetes’ followers. After the defeat of Mycetes, Tamburlaine unexpectedly turns on Cosroe and takes over the Persian Empire.

However Tamburlaine’s ambitions do not stop there. He defeats the Turkish Emperor, Bajazeth, and reduces him and his wife to servant status. Tamburlaine conquers Africa and comes into conflict with Zenocrates’ father, the Soldan of Egypt. After brutally defeating the Soldan’s forces, he makes peace with the Soldan and marries Zenocrates. Thus ends Part 1.

Tamburlaine is an unstoppable force of nature, seemingly driven by his appetites and nothing else. He takes Zenocrates because he can. He conquers much of the world because he has an insatiable love of power. While the play ends with him apparently sated on war and conquest, there is still Part 2 to come, and there are hints earlier that Tamburlaine wants more.

There is no sophistication in Tamburlaine’s fighting. He triumphs mostly by sheer overwhelming numbers and by swift action. He is ruthless towards his enemies. He betrays allies who are more powerful than him. He handsomely rewards allies who are subservient to him.

Nonetheless Tamburlaine does have one special gift, which is the power of oratory. His brilliant speeches win over men who intended to be his enemies, and secure him the love of Zenocrates, who has no reason to care for her oppressor.

It would be a mistake to consider Tamburlaine as driven purely by the impulses of the id. As his relations with Zenocrates show, he has restraint. He woos her chastely and without force, only marrying her, still a virgin, after he has secured her father’s consent.

Tamburlaine expresses love for her that exceeds his ambitions, but I suspect that if he had to choose, he would choose his conquests over her. Certainly he freely attacks her home country in devastating terms. Nonetheless his affection for her is such that he makes a rare gesture of leniency towards her father.

It is clear that Marlowe has a certain sneaking sympathy for Tamburlaine. Perhaps the story of a poor man made good is somehow appealing to Marlowe, and the dramatist has little respect for king, emperors and position.

There is none of the hand-wringing of a Shakespeare play here when it comes to the downfall of the rightful leaders. All the best speeches are given to Tamburlaine. His enemies are a detestable lot who do not command our sympathy. Their mistreatment is treated with savage humour by Marlowe.

Perhaps a little pity can be extended to Bajazeth and his queen, Zabina, both of whom are reduced to slaves. They are detestable, but the sight of a once-proud leader kept in a cage and used as a foot-stool, though humorous, are also pitiful.

It would be a mistake to regard this as an anti-war play however. It may be tempting for some stage managers to make it so. Tamburlaine is cruel and pitiless to Bajazeth and Zabina. He slaughters the Virgins of Damascus who plead for him to spare their city.

There is also the figure of Zenocrates who mourns the destruction of her country. However her angst is short-lived and she is soon happy again when her father is spared. In any case, Zenocrates only shows compassion for Bajazeth and Zabina when her own people are being slaughtered. Until then she is just as merciless as anyone else.

Notably the only person who says, “Cursed be he that invented war” is a buffoonish ruler who has fled the field in a fit of cowardice. Marlowe seems only to glorify the violent actions of his hero.

It has been said that Marlowe was an atheist, and this could certainly be construed from Tamburlaine Part 1. Tamburlaine sneers at the gods. He sets himself at defiance to them, and behaves as if they would be envious of his conquests. His only concession to a higher power is his blind belief that he is fated to rule over much of the world.

Tamburlaine does not compare with the best Shakespeare plays. The play is flat in structure. While Marlowe tries his hardest to invest each conquest with a variety of incident, the same pattern is essentially repeated. Tamburlaine defies a proud ruler. Tamburlaine defeats that rule, and kills or humbles him.

There is no room for ambiguity here. None of the leaders are people we can care about. At best we might feel a fleeting pity for the King of Arabia, Zenocrates’ intended husband, who dies in front of her. However we never saw him up until this point, so there is no investment in his character.

Tamburlaine is a one-note character. He does not agonise over his choices, and hesitate before going forward. He is always certain of the rightness of his actions. His campaigns receive no setbacks that shake his confidence. He always wins. The only angst and sadness in the play comes from Zenocrates, and that is happily resolved without any tragic consequences.

Nonetheless Tamburlaine has many admirable qualities. It is complex, and the verse is brilliant. It represents an important step forward in the development of English drama. It is fresh and exciting, and it has a breadth of intellectual knowledge underpinning it.

[sabisteb aka callisto · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dieses Theaterstück ist ein History Play, die ich generell nicht so mag, weil es eben meist nur um Krieg und Eroberung geht, was ich eher langweilig finde, in jeder Art Literatur.
Tamburlaine (basierend auf Timur bzw. Tamerlane) beginnt seine Karriere als nomadischer Eroberer indem er Zenocrate, die Tochter des Soldan of Egypt auf ihrer Durchreise zu ihrem Verlobten gefangen nimmt. Sie entwickelt daraufhin wohl ein Stockholm Syndrom und verliebt sich in ihren Entführer.
Warum auch immer sich der Bruder des Persischen Königs bei Tamburlaine anbiedert, kann ich nicht verstehen. Warum auch immer die Truppen der Besiegten wohl zu Tamburlaine überlaufen auch nicht. Jedenfalls erobert und übernimmt er ein muslimisches Königkreich nach dem anderen und zuletzt auch, wohl als Hochzeitsgeschenk, das Königkreich von Zenocrates Vater.
Die Handlung ist zäh. Schlacht um Schlacht, Erniedrigung Besiegter, Prahlerei der Sieger. Immerhin werden einem dröge Schlachtenbeschreibungen in der Art von LOTR erspart.
Möglicherweise eine Art Bildungstheaterstück, mit dem Geschichte und Mythologie gelehrt wurde. Da sind so viele Verweise zur griechischen Mythologie, die ich grob kenen, die ich aber teilweise auch nicht verstanden habe. Da wird ziemlich viel wissen an klassischer Mythologie vorausgesetzt.

Es fehlen die Charakterentwicklung und die ethischen Konflikte, wie man sie von Shakespeare kennt. Tamburlaine ist ziemlich straight. Er hat seine Regeln und nach denen handelt er. Ist die rote oder schwarze Flagge oben, dann ist die Zeit des Redens vorbei und auch Botschafter werden gemeuchelt. Regeln sind Regeln sind Regeln.
Kein Meisterstück.

[Eleanor Garvey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Eh. It was okay. I wanted to give it one star but it started to get better by the end so added an extra one- maybe that’s because people start dying and it adds some action that the play had previously been lacking? Not my favourite of the early modern plays I’ve read so far, I found it lacked the classic ‘tragic trope’ that all of the plays I have thus far read, so perhaps I am unfairly comparing them? Then again, if it claims to be a tragedy then add a bit more tragedy! I did like the deaths in the end though… that was tragic. I probably need to read part 2 to understand why it’s classed as a tragedy but honestly I didn’t enjoy it enough to complete the full circle. It’s like when they split films into 2 parts and part 1 is always incredibly boring because there’s never any juicy action (cough cough Mockingjay Pt 1)

[fh n · Rating 3 out of 5]

i have read better, i have read worse, didn’t rly understand it, walked part the way to uni for the cinema and then got the bus home to sleep, not enthused

[paula · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bunch of sensationalism and speed running, but the writing is better than Marlowe's rendition of Faust. Not sure about the biblical comparisons to the imagery in the book, but they may be good.

[t · Rating 3 out of 5]

bit violent do what u gotta do ig

[Brandon Sitch · Rating 4 out of 5]

The play is too busy to be a great read. The constant actions and excess of characters—each act is eventful enough for an entire play—prevent the psychological depth possible in a play with less of a plot. Although the issue could be mine since Shakespeare's Julius Caesar strikes me as too busy as well. Thus this may be attributable to a problem of form, or a playwright's preference for a work that thrives on the stage and worsens on the page. As Marlowe himself writes in the play: "For words are vain where working tools present / The naked action..." (He offers a similar sentiment in Dido, Queen of Carthage: "That love is childish which consists in words.")

Nonetheless, there are great passages throughout and there are some interesting metatheatrical elements here, such as repeatedly mentioning that Tamburlaine's future was already fated, which of course works metatheatrically in that his future is fated (only by Marlowe and not the stars). As Tamburlaine declares:

"... Speak in that mood, /
For 'will' and 'shall' best fitteth Tamburlaine, /
Whose smiling stars gives him assured hope /
Of martial triumph ere he meet his foes."

Additionally, Tamburlaine shifts between using the first-person 'I' and the third-person 'Tamburlaine' for self-reference. He seems aware that he contains within himself both the individual person and the historical (or dramaturgical) character, and this bivalence appears in Tamburlaine's language.

[Richard Seltzer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for the second time as research for my novel The Shakespeare Twins.

[Jordan Beamer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved this play way more than I thought I would. I was laughing out loud reading it (though I'm not convinced it was meant to be funny), and would even summarize quotes or passages to my poor, unsuspecting roommate. This was the third play by Marlowe that I've read, and were it not for the mastery of Faustus, I would list it as my favorite.

[Alex Norcross · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this play even though it has very little plot. It is basically the story of a ruthless man who conquers the entire world with the ease of an elephant tipping over dominos. Every time he goes up against an opponent they both boast about how they will defeat the other because their numbers are so fast and so on, but Tamburlaine always emerges victorious. If you read this at all you will read it for the language, the poetry and epic-nature of the words. Marlowe is not as great as Shakespeare, but he still has some pretty boss lines. It's decent on the page, but it would probably be even better in performance, especially at the Blackfriars in Staunton.

[Justin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tamburlaine is Donald Trump.

[Bella · Rating 1 out of 5]

Am I allowed to say a key literary work from the Early Modern Period is boring? This is boring. And a little bit horrifying. And very, very, dull.

[Richard Rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

My rating is for the play (especially the verse) but mostly for the edition. I'm here to point you to it with my recommendation.

I hunted for an edition of any Marlowe plays organized the way I like to read difficult texts, with notes on the page so that you can get assistance with the language and the obscure references without flipping back and forth between the play and the notes in the back. (My favorite work of this type is Isaac Asimov's annotated Paradise Lost. You can get your own copy today for about $250.) None of the texts that I could find were like this. Finally, I found ElizabethanDrama.org, which had pdf's of all Marlowe's work annotated in just this way, using notes from a variety of properly-cited resources. I found this edition very readable, the notes useful and interesting, and the overall experience a pleasure.

It's true that this is a simple story, in a way. It was a popular play, written to be enjoyed by the average person. The plot is straightforward, though the language is spectacular. Here's a random bit. (I literally just flipped the pages.)

Tamburlaine:
So shall he have his life and all the rest:
But if he stay until the bloody flag
Be once advanced on my vermilion tent,
He dies, and those that kept us out so long,
And when they see us march in black array,
With mournful streamers hanging down their heads,
Were in that city all the world contained,
Not one should 'scape, but perish by our swords.

(Notice the strict adherence to blank verse. Ten-syllable lines as far as the eye can see, with just rare exceptions. Count the syllables! Check the rhythm! Seriously. It's like that all the way through. I'm impressed, anyway.)

Thematically, the play asks many questions, such as the nature of power, the justifications for violence, the morality of empire-building, the cost of pride, and the value of loyalty, along with many others. In terms of plot, though, it's very direct; this really is an action story. In a way, it is the equivalent of a bulldozer plowing through a row of shacks. You know how it's going to go once you've seen the setup, even if you didn't know the basic contours of the historical events. The only question you might have is whether Tamburlaine or anyone in his orbit will ever show any true mercy or humanity. (Spoiler--just barely.)

Part of the pleasure in reading the play is psychological and anthropological--mining it for insights into the author's mind as well as the world in which it was written. For example, we see rulers more concerned with their rights and their power than the survival and well-being their people, and in conjunction with that, we see people who are more angry with their leaders for foolishly opposing Tamburlaine than they are with him for attacking them. It doesn't matter much to the regular people who rules them--they're all bad. (Is this how the people thought? Or how Marlowe thought? Not sure.) The casual brutality of so many characters is shocking, and their selfishness. The only characters really likable are the virgins sent to Tamburlaine to plead for mercy. They were angry and brave and sympathetic, much more than the leaders who sent them out.

Yeah, he killed them. That's how he was. Nobody was terribly surprised.

I found all of that horrifying and interesting. Apparently, it gets worse in part II. We'll see!

Anyway, if you have a mind to read Marlowe (or other Elizabethan dramatists) and like the annotated versions, I recommend http://elizabethandrama.org . You can just read it all on your computer, though I prefer to read on paper, and found there are pdf-printing services that can print and ship a couple plays spiral-bound into one book for about $15.

[Fred · Rating 1 out of 5]

That was not my favourite Early Modern play. Maybe it’s a better one to see performed. (It’s almost always the case with plays that they’re better after you’ve seen a performance!) On the page, there is nothing more here than an episodic narrative of a king - Tamburlaine - conquering one nation and one ruler after another. A series of triumphant battles and then he just settles down in his glory, marrying a woman Zenocrates who he has stolen from one of the nations he conquered (although she - inexplicably - starts rooting for him. There are moments of doubt - p238, for instance - so maybe her character is nuanced.)

Act 1.2 shows that Tamburlaine starts out quite poetically versed and polite, despite his pillaging…but as the play goes on, he descends into this tyrannical, brutal, violent barbarian. I just had no sympathy for him at all. He was a murderous monster. Contrary to what Marlowe writes here, Timūr did not start life as a shepherd - he was already a member of the nobility before he started his pillaging (Spence 610).

Critics insist that Marlowe is presenting Tamburlaine as darkly attractive despite his violence - the “charismatic barbarian”, if you like. (Some also think that Tamburlaine represents Marlowe’s own rejection of religion in how - in Part 2 - he burns the Koran and calls Christianity “superstitious”, although Spence advises against such a simplistic biographical reading (609)). All I can say is - if he is is supposed to be sympathetic, I didn’t see it. He’s just a murderous pillager. Maybe you need the actor onstage to lend him a wider range of emotion to make us see his true complexity, yadda yadda.

If you read this (and Part Two) as a tragedy, then Tamburlaine’s tragic fall must surely be provoked by his hubris. The tragic error of judgement is descending into tyranny. At his height of dangerous hubris, Tamburlaine claims that he is channelling the will of God in his pillaging (224). So either Marlowe is critiquing religion or critiquing people who see themselves as equal to God. And he must be encouraging us to distance ourselves from Tamburlaine in his treatment of the vulnerable virgin women (232-233) - surely?

Or is Marlowe inviting us to enjoy Tamburlaine’s transgressive nihilism and rejection of religious cultural foundations? Who knows.

Interesting thematic elements but not my favourite play overall. Just a bunch of pillaging and violence. Message (whether intended by Marlowe or not): Timūr was a tyrant.

[David Stephens · Rating 4 out of 5]

If Macbeth shows hesitation and introspection before letting his vaulting ambition get the better of him, then Christopher Marlowe’s Tamburlaine does just the opposite, blowing past virtually any opportunity to consider others and act with anything but brute force and an absolute lack of mercy.

In that vein, the play is right in line with the other violent revenge dramas of the time–Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy or Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus–as it contains over the top speeches about the drive for power and scene after scene of interminable cruelty. It even has its own outlandishness. When Tamburlaine captures the Turkish emperor, he not only subjects him to torture and abuse, he makes him serve as the powerful leader’s personal footstool. It may have helped that Tamburlaine was eastern so that British audiences could still gawk at his endeavors without condoning his behavior.

Otherwise, Tamburlaine bears some resemblance to Milton’s satan. He is clearly evil, but his personality shines through enough that readers/viewers can’t help but be captivated by him. His only real draw to sympathy, however, is when he briefly stops to consider his kidnapped bride’s request to spare her father, a rare thought of someone else’s happiness. Aside from this, he’s all bloodshed all the time.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Marlowe’s Tamburlaine is a classic grotesque. We admire his ability to rise from the lower classes and conquer those who rule by hereditary right, but also we are horrified by the means required to do it: merciless slaughter, destroying all opposition, and promising riches for only the most loyal. The idea of such a leader spreading out his empire must have horrified the British in the year leading up to the Spanish Armada, when this play was first performed. Tamburlaine is the leader that countries both desire and fear in a world where power is only obtained through blood and unity is preserved only through forced submission.

Marlowe can really only take two possible routes in Part II: 1) Tamburlaine continues his mighty conquests -- which seems highly unlikely, considering the end of Part I suggests he has conquered all there is between Arabia and Gibraltar; or 2) Marlowe charts Tamburlaine's epic fall from the apex of his power. That second possibility seems the most obvious, since the “meteoric rise-and-fall” narrative is so central to Western literature. In that sense, it’s almost a little too predictable to see where this is heading in Part II.

[sabisteb aka callisto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Faszinierend, was für einen Unterschied gescheite Charakterstimmen und stimmige Interpretaion des Textes doch machen können. Die 1996 Hörspielversion war klassische Deklamation in Oxford English mit sehr ähnlichen stimmen, zäh und man hatte kaum Überblick wer gerade redet. Auch in diesem Hörspiel gibt es keine Regieanweisungen, aber irgendwie hat man den Überblick, möglicherweise durch die subtil andere Soundkulisse. Auch die Stimmen sind Charakterstimmen. OK, nicht alle, aber besonders Tamburlaine mit seinem Unterschichtenakzent gibt dem Ganzen einen anderen Twist. Obwohl ich das Stück gelesen hatte, hatte ich teils nicht so den Überblick warum bestimmte Dinge wann getan wurden. Dieses Hörspiel ist wirklich extrem hilfreich, um zu verstehen wer wann warum was tut und das nur, durch die lebendige Interpretation und die verschiedenen Akzente.
Macht die Geschichte ehrlicherweise nicht besser, aber besser verständlich.
Hier ist nur Teil 1 vertont, was man auch schon an der Länge von "nur" 2h sieht.

[Babita · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a worthy contender of Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe's Tamburlaine part I is full of ancient conquests, gore and a glimpse of chivalry and wooing of women, which you don't see much in this day and age.

It reminded me a lot of Game of Thrones; the feudal lords and kings who are obsessed with brutal killings. Although Tamburlaine's character seems barbaric and cruel, it's difficult not take his side as his lyrical words are often deep and metaphorical. Zenocrate, his love interest, though at the beginning doesn't get on with him, it's hard for her not to fall for Tamburlaine, whose humble story from being a shepherd to a king obviously impresses her. However, she has more moral sense and empathy than Tamburlaine, especially for the victims such as Bajazeth and Zabina who have tragic endings like Romeo and Juliet. This doesn't stop Tamburlaine from expanding his conquest and he continues ruling the East and probably the West too with his allies.

Highly recommendable!

[Shaun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Absolutely great work. Some of the most moving language I've read in a work of early modern drama.

The tale of Tamburlaine is frenetic, and seems to jump from battle sequence to battle sequence with little regard for the human consequence. The play addresses some of these issues in a way that forms an undercurrent to increasing violence. By the end, there is an unsettling accord struck between the violence and it's consequences as we are led into the Second Part of this tyrants fascinating tale.