Talk:Tamburlaine

Removed

I removed the following, which shows little understanding of Elizabethan history plays, which are almost all episodic in nature. Unless there is a reputable source it doesn't belong in the article. The Singing Badger 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In Tamburlaine, Marlowe follows an episodic style that is far closer to medieval closet drama than to the more structured classical tragedy or even to the tragedies of Shakespeare. Marlowe offers a simple procession of scenes that depict Tamburlaine's rise to greatness, his ascendancy, and (in the play usually regarded as a sequel, his fall.

original performance date

It seems that the there is a mistake in the date of the original performance of Tamburlaine. According to the facts I've found, Tamburlaine couldn't have been performed at the Fortune Theatre because the theatre wasn't built until 1600. It could have been performed at the Rose Theatre, but probably not in 1587 because Henslowe's accounts of productions are recorded in a diary and the entries of productions didn't start until 1592. It is recorded in his diary that Tamburlaine was performed at the Rose by the Admiral's men "fifteen times between 28 August 1594 and 12 November 1595" (Rhodes, p. 197). It doesn't specify if this is the very first performance of this play, but it is probable that it could be considering Marlowe's close connection to Henslowe and his company throughout his playwrighting career.

Just thought I'd clear this up.

BLD- November 29, 2006

Rhodes, Ernest L. Henslowe’s Rose: The Stage & Staging. Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1976.

Inferior?

This sentence seems rather careless to me: "While Tamburlaine is considered inferior to the great tragedies of the late-Elizabethan and early-Jacobean period..." Who can say that a play is considered "inferior?" This certainly has no place in an encyclopaedia, or in any academic writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebobs (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I realise that I am responding to an ancient comment, but value judgments such as this are in fact what much academic writing comprises. There is such a thing as bad writing just as much as there is such a thing as good writing. It is very possible to argue that one play is superior to another, and many have done and continue to do so. --Bajazeth. And think to rouse us from our dreadful siege / Of the famous Grecian Constantinople 14:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Performance history

A performance written as being in the future is given dates now in the past. If this happened, it needs to be changed to past tense. If it didn't, it needs to be axed.Thmazing (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Thmazing

Plot - Who?

"During this time, Bajazeth's son, Callapine, plans to avenge his father's death. Finally, while attacking an Islamic nation, he scornfully burns a copy of the Qur'an and claims to be greater than God." The above is poor English. The pronoun "he" can be understood to refer to Callapine, although it makes no implicit sense that way. I assume, but am not sure, that the 'he' is Tamburlaine. Somebody who can confirm, please change. BTW, the line about Callapine seems irrelevant. Maybe rewrite and note it as a sub-plot?71.31.147.72 (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty obviously referring to Tamburlaine. --Bajazeth. And think to rouse us from our dreadful siege / Of the famous Grecian Constantinople 17:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Timur's and Tamburlaine's Origins

The introduction includes, "Whereas the real Timur was of Turkic-Mongolian ancestry and belonged to the nobility, for dramatic purposes Marlowe depicts him as a Scythian shepherd who rises to the rank of emperor." While I agree with the nobility vs. shepherd dichotomy, Timur was born in part of Scythia -- Wikipedia tells me Scythia included "Parama Kamboja, corresponding to northern Afghanistan and parts of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan" and that Timur was born in Uzbekistan -- and this makes me worry that the sentence's reference to ancestry are misleading or confusing. Perhaps, however, improved verbiage would make the distinction helpful instead. Does anyone, perhaps with more expertise than I, whether in the historical character or the play, care to weigh in? Czrisher (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Category

I created Category:Tamburlaine. However, I couldn't find any other articles to place in said category, so said category could be deleted. What do you think? Or are there other articles that belong in such a category?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)