Marlowe Review: Tamburlaine the Great, Part Two

One of the differences between the Elizabethans and Hollywood is the lack of recaps and exposition in Elizabethan drama. It’s unclear how long the gap was between Marlowe’s plays (Tamburlaine Part One is believed to have premiered in 1587; Part Two was probably first staged by 1588). Part One must have stayed strong in the audience’s minds because Marlowe launched into Part Two without a refresher.

Going against Hollywood practices for sequels today, Marlowe begins with Tamburlaine’s enemies plotting against him. For the first acts, Tamburlaine only has cameos in his own play. Once he retakes the spotlight, he goes from being terrible to even worse.

Over the course of the play, Tamburlaine insults and eventually murders his own son, forces conquered opponents to pull his chariot like horses, and slaughters every man, woman, and child in Babylon after it surrenders. Of course, what the play is most famous for is Tamburlaine burning the Koran and declaring himself superior to Muhammad and God. Some, but not all, modern productions of this play either edit or omit that scene.

Tamburlaine Part One and Two was hugely influential in the use of dramatic language. The descriptive, flowery, almost bombastic speech that most people associate with Shakespeare stems from Marlowe. This style was dominant for decades, but fell out of favor. Shakespeare even parodied it (after seriously copying it in Henry VI Part One, Part Two, and Part Three). Ben Jonson denounced this style of Marlowe’s and, for the most part, it’s been shuffled off to parodies.

I thought the style was like that of ancient playwright Aeschylus who was ridiculed for it by his rival Euripides. (I’d love to present this as brilliant insight but it’s really not. I don’t know Greek so the parallels might just be the way it was translated.)

What’s it all about? I’m not sure. In Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part Two Hal’s brother, Prince John, tells a rebellious castle that if they agree to talk, he will spare their lives. They agree and John has them all rounded up and killed.

What did Shakespeare want us to take away from that? That any means to put down terrorism is justified or that John was in the wrong. Shakespeare doesn’t say.

Maybe he learned this from Marlowe because no one is certain of what Marlowe wanted to teach us. Christians break treaties with Muslims and end up defeated. Is that a comment on Christianity or on dishonesty in general?

Tamburlaine burns the Koran and mocks God, and then defeats his enemies. Is that an insult against Islam, against religion in general, or a display of insane hubris? Is Tamburlaine’s death a punishment from God or to demonstrate that none could stand before Tamburlaine while he lived?

Today’s movies usually have background music that tells us if someone is threatening, heroic, or comic. We are so accustomed to theme music that when Kevin Smith filmed Red State without music, many audience members didn’t know who to root for. We’re spoiled today.

All in all, I didn’t enjoy either Tamburlaine very much but can appreciate how important they are to the history of literature. Marlowe is not the writer I thought he was but I’m glad I muddled through.