1

ENGL 7050: English Drama

Middle Tennessee State University

Dr. Pete McCluskey

An essay by William Luke Patton

April 28 2010

“A New Kind of Tragedy in Marlowe’s Tamburlaine Plays”

Christopher Marlowe had a reputation for being controversial and going against the grain

in his own time. He was repudiated as an atheist before his untimely, though possibly arranged

death. His plays, Tamburlaine the Great Part I and Part II are examples of Marlowe’s flair for

the unconventional in his writings. The playwright chose the merciless Turkish warrior and

tyrant, Timur the Lame, as his protagonist. The prologue of the first play opens with the unusual

admonition: “View but his picture in this tragic glass / And then applaud his fortunes as you

please” (Marlowe, Tamburlaine the Great Part I Prologue 7-8). Since he uses the term “tragic

glass,” one would think that the play’s intent is to show us a typical tragedy following the

standard “de casibus” form of Marlowe’s time. The de casibus form followed a story in which a

tyrant is ruined and violently struck down by God for his pride and cruelty. However, this does

not happen. Instead Tamburlaine the Great Part I follows Tamburlaine’s uninterrupted rise to

power and ends with his triumph. Even in Part II, Tamburlaine remains undefeated except by a

natural, sickened death. A well-deserved violent end does not overtake the cruel warrior and the

element of divine retribution appears to be lacking. The dominant form of tragedy in the

Renaissance,

the concept of tragedy as a ‘glass’ or ‘mirror’ that reveals universal truths, especially the

‘truth’ that in this world vice is severely punished and virtue rewarded, is a hallmark of

2

de casibus tragedy. Yet neither the first nor the second part of Marlowe’s double edged,

experimental tragedy conforms to de casibus law. De casibus tragedy may well be called

a tragedy of power since it focuses on portraying the progress and outcome of

overweening ambition. Though it resounds with de casibus terminology, Tamburlaine

clearly resists assimilation into this generic strain because Marlowe resolutely refuses to

moralize upon his hero’s horrifying exploits…Rather Marlowe gives his readers free rein

to exercise whatever moral judgments they wish regarding Tamburlaine (Grande 44-45).

We must ask then, in what sense are the Tamburlaine plays tragedies. Death does claim

Tamburlaine, but not defeat, and Tamburlaine does exhibit the tragic flaws of pride and

ambition. Considering Marlowe’s reputed atheism, it is possible that the tragedy we find in

Tamburlaine is one that does not take the idea of a retributive god into account. Perhaps

Marlowe was attempting to show the tragedy of a world ruled not by God, but by cruel chance,

and that anyone who thinks himself impervious to the winds of change is foolish and bound for

disappointment. According to Marc Woodworth,

Marlowe was one of the first English dramatists to consciously manipulate received ideas

of dramatic tradition and introduce a new mode of tragedy that did not depend on a

universe controlled by a God who meted out a given punishment for a given transgression

or by Fortuna who regulated her wheel so that those on top must fall to despair

(Woodworth, 78).

In both his Tamburlaine plays, Marlowe discards typical tragic conventions and introduces a new

kind of tragedy based on a nihilistic world of change.

Part of the reason Marlowe’s tragedy ends with Tamburlaine undefeated, unlike

Shakespeare’s Macbeth and Richard III, is this is the way the real Tamburlaine ended his days.

3

According to one of Marlowe’s sources for the play, Thomas Fortescue’s The Foreste, the real

Tamburlaine was a man who “neuer sawe the back, or the frounyng face of fortune” and neuer

was vanquished, or put to flighte by any” (qtd. in Grande 59). But then why would Marlowe

choose to retell a story of tyranny victorious? And after all, history did not necessarily have to

dictate how every element of the play should unfold in Marlowe’s time. Often playwrights would

rewrite history to fit the prejudices of their audience. This explains why Shakespeare would

follow Thomas More’s biased account and depict Richard III as being deformed and

hunchbacked. So Marlowe clearly made a conscious decision to depict a foreign tyrant as

remaining undefeated and unhampered by God or mortal man in his quest to conquer the world.

Aside from Tamburlaine’s lameness from an injury prior to the play, which is never referred to

in detail, Tamburlaine is never assaulted and defeated physically and his army is never defeated.

Marlowe verges on insolence by depicting a proud foreign enemy who threatens all of Europe

and Asia with his might and after a series of great victories is only brought down by natural

death. It is only after his death that Tamburlaine’s empire crumbles, and this is clearly the fault

of his envious and quarrelsome sons. As evidenced in Doctor Faustus and The Jew of Malta,

Marlowe is known for plays whose protagonists were often cruel and unrepentant anti-heroes

and their effrontery is only checked at the last moment. In the Tamburlaine plays, the anti-hero’s

effrontery is barely checked and is not done so in typical fashion.

In depicting Tamburlaine’s rise to power, Marlowe not only challenged typical tragic

form but challenged British doctrines concerning the right to rule. The first of the kings to be

conquered by Tamburlaine is Mycetes of Persia. Mycetes was born to the title of king. His

family has commanded over Asia for generations. According to British beliefs, Mycetes has a

divine right to rule. Yet Mycetes is not only conquered, he is portrayed as a foolish king. His

4

own brother rightly says at the beginning, “all Asia / Lament to see the folly of their king”

(Marlowe, Part I 1.1.95-96). Mycetes is so confident in his power he fails to see Cosroe is

clearly plotting to overthrow him and he fails to censure him for his open words of treason.

Mycetes is so foolish that in the first act his subjects immediately make Cosroe their new king

and later Theridamas and his army will join with Tamburlaine to overthrow his king.

Tamburlaine realizes that Mycetes is foolish and proud and so when he encounters him in battle

he teases him by holding his crown away from him and then promptly giving it back saying,

“Here, take it for a while. I lend it thee / Till I may see thee hemmed with armed men; / Then

shalt thou see me pull it from thy head. / Thou art no match for mighty Tamburlaine” (Marlowe,

Part I 2.4.36-39). Tamburlaine is not boasting here. He “speaks the truth when he surmises that

Mycetes is no match for him; Mycetes is hardly a match for anyone” (Box 17). Tamburlaine also

swiftly overtakes the short-sighted Cosroe. One would think that after he so easily conquered

Persia, the next empire Tamburlaine challenges would take him seriously. But Bajazeth, emperor

of Turkey, is even more arrogant towards Tamburlaine. Bajazeth proclaims the might of his

empire as resting upon the titles that he and his nobles were born to, once again an idea that was

popular in the Britain of Marlowe’s time, and scoffs that Tamburlaine, born a mere shepherd,

should dare to challenge his authority. Bajazeth says, “Note the presumption of this Scythian

slave. / I tell thee, villain, those that lead my horse / Have to their names titles of dignity; / And

dar’st thou bluntly call me Bajazeth” (Marlowe, Part I 3.3.68-71). Bajazeth prophesies that

Tamburlaine will be made his slave and his captains “Shall draw the chariot of my empress /

Whom I have brought to see their overthrow” (80-81). This prophecy will come true, except that

Bajazeth will become Tamburlaine’s slave and in Part II Tamburlaine’s chariot will be drawn by

kings. All the kings Tamburlaine overtakes rely on their birthrights to protect their authority and

5

yet Tamburlaine, a base-born usurper is never defeated and gains each of their empires. This

element flies in the face of Britain’s divine right doctrine and of conceptions of a world directed

by God’s will.

Whereas Shakespeare would mostly concern himself with monarchs who were born with

noble titles to their background, Marlowe champions a commoner. Tamburlaine was one of the

first “common man” literary heroes who made it to the top. Tamburlaine’s common origins make

him more appealing and identifiable to the audience than the noble born Henry VII of

Shakespeare’s Richard III. Furthermore, why he makes it to the top is significant. Though

Tamburlaine is a great military strategist, seductive orator and claims his quest for domination is

endorsed by the gods, part of his victory lies in the fact that his enemies are so foolhardy and

overconfident. As Terry Box questions, “Is he successful because of his power, or because of the

weakness of his enemies?” (Box 17) It is likely that Tamburlaine’s cunning and chance itself

plays a large part in his accomplishments. Even when Tamburlaine proclaims that he is the

appointed scourge of God, we must ask which god. Tamburlaine goes through a great list of

deities from many religions that he is the scourge of. It becomes evident that Tamburlaine is a

self-indulgent nihilist who adopts numerous deities as backing his rise only because it can

intimidate his enemies and suits his vanity. This is most apparent when, in Part II, Tamburlaine

burns the Koran and proclaims himself not only above Muhammad but also above God. This is

one of many instances where Tamburlaine will profess himself divine.

That Tamburlaine remains unpunished by any deity for this hubris showcases a

demonstration of Renaissance Humanism, which championed the excellence of humans and their

free will to such a degree that humans were practically seen as gods in their own way. The truth

is that chance and Tamburlaine’s own actions, not God’s, have made him king. As he himself

6

says, “I am a lord, for so my deeds shall prove, / And yet a shepherd by my parentage”

(Marlowe, Tamburlaine the Great Part I 1.2.34-35). Tamburlaine is so confident in his abilities

that he believes he controls fate itself and wields it to his success. Smacking of Humanistic pride,

Tamburlaine’s self-fulfilling prophecy runs: “I hold the Fates bound fast in iron chains, / And

with my hand turn Fortune’s wheel about, / And sooner shall the sun fall from his sphere / Than

Tamburlaine be slain or overcome” (Part I 174-77). This statement proves true and, despite his

hubris and cruelty, no man slays Tamburlaine and no god causes him military defeat. This shows

that Marlowe endorsed a Humanist viewpoint in this play. Tamburlaine continues to defy the

gods when in Part II, as he burns the Koran, he rails against Mahomet, who the British of

Marlowe’s time often mistook for the god of Islam: “Why send’s thou not a furious whirlwind

down / To blow thy Alcoran up to thy throne, / Where men report thou sitt’st by God himself? /

Or vengeance on the head of Tamburlaine / That shakes his sword against thy majesty / And

spurns the abstracts of thy foolish laws?” (Marlowe, Tamburlaine the Great Part II 5.1.190-95)

Another key element is how Tamburlaine’s opponents appeal to God in vain to punish

Tamburlaine and crush his empire. Taken captive, Zenocrate defiantly declares to Tamburlaine,

“The gods, defenders of the innocent, / Will never prosper your intended drifts” (Marlowe, Part I

1.2.68-69), though she will quickly change her tune once seduced by Tamburlaine. During the

battle of words between Zenocrate and Zabina, Zabina prays, “Now, Mahomet, solicit God

Himself / And make Him rain down murdering shot from heaven / To dash the Scythians’ brains

and strike them dead” (Part I 3.3.195-97). Once he is Tamburlaine’s captive, Bajazeth demands,

“Ye holy priests of heavenly Mahomet… Make heaven to frown and every fixed star / To suck

up poison from the Moorish fens / And pour it in this glorious tyrant’s throat” (Part I 4.2.2-7).

Other similar appeals to the gods in Part II prove fruitless. Eventually Bajazeth comes to realize

7

that no matter how they curse and how the heavens may frown against Tamburlaine, not even the

gods can bring Tamburlaine down (Part I 5.1.230-33). Hearing this, the captive Zabina cries out,

“Then is there left no Mahomet, no god, / No fiend, no fortune, nor no hope of end / To our

infamous, monstrous slaveries?” (Part I 239-41). This cry is at the heart of Marlowe’s nihilistic,

atheistic vision of the world. Zenocrate’s servant Anippe sums it up, telling Zenocrate, “Your

love hath Fortune so at his command / That she shall stay and turn her wheel no more / As long

as life maintains his mighty arm” (Part I 373-75). It would seem that if even the Gods are

powerless to displace Tamburlaine then the world is ruled by chance and by man’s actions and it

happens that this is what insures Tamburlaine’s victories. Marlowe seems to be saying that in a

world dominated by chance, a cruel, arrogant man of base stock can become king of the world

and even proclaim himself above God and not suffer immediate punishment. In a world of

chance, man’s actions can shape his own destiny. Marlowe’s message is that this is a world

where a man makes his own triumph and his own tragedies.

It is difficult to see where the tragic aspect of Tamburlaine the Great Part I lies, at least

for Tamburlaine, for instead of ending with the protagonist’s downfall, it ends with an ascension

and wedding. This ending makes Part I seem more like a history or even a comedy. Marlowe, of

course, knew that the proud Tamburlaine eventually died and probably intended from the start to

at some point dramatize this faintly tragic event, although this is highly debated. That he chose to

split the story into two plays makes it hard to see the triumphant first half as anything but a

celebration of the success of this villainous hero. But the tragedy of the two plays, when

combined, is subtle. The tragedy that Marlowe records in his Tamburlaine plays is “the suffering

and woe that man’s degenerate will – ever striving to possess an illusory ideal of life’s

fulfillment – inevitably produces” (Masinton 17).

8

Marlowe goes to great lengths to craft a double-edged tragedy in which the audience both

loathes and admires his protagonist. While Tamburlaine is a merciless conqueror, he is not

without honor. He is a charming wooer of his wife and treats her well (Marlowe, Part I 3.2.37-

39). He is gracious to his comrades in arms (Part I 1.2.241-46). He is a practical military

strategist and arguably not overly cruel. Though he murders the virgins of Damascus’ along with

many others, he does so only after giving the city fair warning with his colored flags. Arguably,

the fault for the virgins’ murder lies with the Governor and the Sultan, who waited too late to

surrender their city. And so there is some credence for sympathizing with Tamburlaine as a

tragic hero.

As far as Marlowe is concerned, Tamburlaine’s chief sin is ambition – the ambition to

continually strive for power and the pride to proclaim oneself godlike and immortal. But this

ambition is never truly satisfied. As soon as Tamburlaine gains a crown, it becomes worthless to

him, so that he must seek to conquer again and again. Even when he dies, having many

kingdoms under his control, he still laments that there are kingdoms yet to be conquered. Since

Tamburlaine’s imaginative desire is

always greater than the objects which it seizes, that desire must always remain

unsatisfied, always seeking new objects. The protagonist’s progress through both parts of

Tamburlaine is marked by just such anticipation and frustration, as his disorderly appetite

for what is most difficult inspires ceaseless undertakings which are successful, but never

satisfying (Tromly 68-69).

And so it is tragic that all of Tamburlaine’s conquests will never please him fully. Another tragic

element is what this ambition and desire for conquest is doing to Tamburlaine’s soul. As

Zenocrate weeps,

9

Those that are proud of fickle empery,

And place their chiefest good in earthly pomp,

Behold the Turk and his great emperess!

Ah, Tamburlaine, my love, sweet Tamburlaine,

That fights for scepters and for slippery crowns…

Thou that in conduct of thy happy stars

Sleep’st every night with conquest on thy brows

And yet would’st shun the wavering turns of war,

In fear and feeling of the like distress

Behold the Turk and his great emperess!

Ah, mighty Jove and holy Mahomet,

Pardon my love, oh, pardon his contempt

Of earthly fortune and respect of pity (Marlowe, Part I 5.1.352-65).

Zenocrate laments that her love is so drawn to earthly power that he is corrupting his already

fleeting goodness with the bloody deeds that result from his pursuits. In her mind is the old

proverb of ‘what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul.’ She is also

afraid that he shall reap some future sorrow in exchange for the delight he takes in gaining

power. Indeed, this will be case, in more ways than Zenocrate can know.

Aside from conquering kingdoms and being in battle, Tamburlaine’s greatest joy is his

“divine Zenocrate.” He takes excessive pride in her and her beauty. He boasts of her, “bright

Zenocrate, the world’s fair eye, / Whose beams illuminate the lamps of heaven, / Whose cheerful

looks do clear the cloudy air / And clothe it in a crystal livery” (Marlowe, Part II 1.3.1-4). And it

is this joy that he will lose. As sickness swiftly takes its toll on Zenocrate, Tamburlaine is

10

defeated for the first time by a force greater than he: death. The loss of Zenocrate “demonstrates

to him that immortality does not touch all those around him, as he has believed, and even he

cannot successfully command nature at his will” (Marquis, 27). And as she suddenly sickens to

death, despair takes hold of Tamburlaine. This is because he has so deluded himself that nothing

can touch or harm him and Zenocrate, that he cannot believe it when something does.

Tamburlaine is shocked as he views Zenocrate on her deathbed. Where once his life was

illuminated brightly by Zenocrate, he cries out, “Black is the beauty of the brightest day; / The

golden ball of heaven’s eternal fire, / That danc’d with glory on the silver waves, / Now wants

the fuel that inflam’d his beams, / And, all with faintness and for foul disgrace, / He binds his

temples with a frowning cloud, / Ready to darken earth with endless night” (Marlowe, Part II

2.4.1-7). Tamburlaine sees her death as shaking the heavens with its impossibility. In his vanity,

he even imagines a god coveting Zenocrate and thus stealing her away from him. Zenocrate, on

the other hand sees her death as a natural, normal change that must inevitably happen. According

to her, she fares “as other empresses, / That when this frail and transitory flesh / Hath suck’d the

measure of that vital air / That feeds the body with his dated health, / Wanes with enforc’d and

necessary change” (Part II 42-46). Tamburlaine answers her, “May never such a change

transform my love” (Part II 47). Here, change is the controlling force, not God. Tamburlaine is

so deluded in the belief that he and Zenocrate are untouchable that after she dies, he orders the

city of her death burned and that her corpse be preserved and carried with him wherever he goes.

And so the world’s inevitable change robbed Tamburlaine of that joy that represented his power

over beauty and life.

But the tragedy of Tamburlaine is not yet over, for unbeatable change descends upon

Tamburlaine himself as well. From the start of his rise to power, Tamburlaine had believed

11

himself invincible and even divine. Tempting him to join his cause, Tamburlaine proclaims to

Theridamas, “by those steps that he hath scaled the heavens / May we become immortal like the

gods” (Marlowe, Part I 1.2.200-01). Tamburlaine goes so far as to even imagine death as his

servant. Tamburlaine shows the Damascus virgins his sword and proclaims, “there sits Death,

there sits imperious Death” (Part I 5.1.111). Tamburlaine’s fortunes turn, of course, and he soon

realizes that even he is subject to mortality. As he sickens, Tamburlaine says, “See where my

slave, the ugly monster, Death, / Shaking and quivering, pale and wan for fear, / Stands aiming at

me with his murdering dart” (Part II 5.3.67-69). Tamburlaine may fancy his death as ordered by

some envious god, but the detailed report of his physician on the state of his sickness (Part II

5.3.82-97), the lengthening of time before his death, and the way that he seems to have a degree

of vitality even in sickness suggests more of scientific nature and less of the smiting of an angry

god. Finally, we see that even the undefeatable Tamburlaine is a mortal, with mortal failings.

Though he has suspended Tamburlaine’s death until the final scene of the second play, Marlowe

ultimately reveals that Tamburlaine is “an earthbound creature – unable, despite his boasting, to

overcome the limitations of flesh and bone – who cannot see his wretchedness because he is

trapped within his dream of absolute domination” (Masinton 50).

At length, Tamburlaine feels death take firm hold of his body. He calls for a map to be

spread out so he may “see how much / Is left for me to conquer all the world” (Marlowe, Part II

5.3.123-24). He thoroughly lists the names of all the lands he had planned to overtake. He is

shocked and grieved, saying, “And shall I die, and this unconquered?” (Part II 158) Even as his

life ebbs away, he cannot bring himself to forego his ambition and the urge to conquer. It is not

God that strikes down Tamburlaine but Nature and that makes the tragedy of Tamburlaine all the

more overbearing, for we all can identify with Tamburlaine’s desire to hold on to the joys of life

12

to the last moment, though death and change are inevitable. Marlowe shows us that a man can

fight and fight, he can even conquer the world through force of arms, and think himself immortal

and a god but, in this world of change, this world without God, he cannot hold the world forever.

Nothing is permanent and no one is invulnerable. Thus Marlowe changes the typical form of a

tragedy, wherein a proud tyrant who defies God is disgraced and struck down by him, for a more

realistic tragedy about the impermanence of all things.

13

Works Cited

Box, Terry Joe. "Irony and Objectivity in the Works of Christopher Marlowe." Diss. Texas Tech U, 1972. Print.

Grande, Troni Y. Marlovian Tragedy: The Play of Dilation. London: Associated U P, Inc., 1999. Print.

Marlowe, Christopher. Tamburlaine the Great Part I. English Renaissance Drama. Ed. Lars Engle. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002. 190-242. Print.

---. Tamburlaine the Great Part II. Regents Renaissance Drama. Ed. John D. Jump. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1967. Print.

Marquis, Liane. Marlowe, Tamburlaine and the Demise of Traditional Elizabethan Monarchy. Diss. Northeastern U, 2006. Print.

Masinton, Charles G. Christopher Marlowe's Tragic Vision. Athens, OH: Ohio U P, 1972. Print.

Tromly, Fred B. Playing with Desire: Christopher Marlowe and the Art of Tantalization. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1998. Print.

Woodworth, Marc. "The Tragic Mode of Christopher Marlowe's Tamburlaine, Part I." Comitatus 16.1 (1985): 77-88. Print.