What do you think?
Rate this book
Tamburlaine the Great #2
Tamburlaine the Great - Part 2
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.
96 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 1, 1590
6 people are currently reading
99 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Marlowe
665 books836 followersChristopher "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.
The author's Wikipedia page.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
June 4, 2019
Just as Tamburlaine Part I is technically a comedy, ending with the conqueror's marriage to Zenobia, so Tamburlaine Part II—in addition to being a complicated commentary on the Moslem and the Christian faith—is a simple tragedy which shows us how a destroyer of cities, who has never for a moment contemplated his own mortality, faces a certain death.
In this second part of his story, Tamburlaine becomes absolute master of the East, his triumphal chariot (literally) drawn by kings. But his triumphs—and their increasing violence—cannot forestall the death of his wife Zenobia, the cowardly behavior of his son Calyphas, or his own inevitable death by disease.
The “mighty line” of Marlowe's verse remains unchanged: it is a magnificent though limited vehicle, only appropriate to the utterances of the great. The ironic richness of Marlowe's perspective, however, has increased. He shows us how monarchs may proclaim their Faith while breaking their solemn promises, and how a man who can wield death fiercely may still tremble violently at its approach.
This is an early Elizabethan play and, like a young genius, crude and rash though it may be, it is extraordinarily gifted and promises of great things to come. With it, the English stage enters its first great period of achievement.
Here, in a passage from the final act, Tamburlaine speaks to his generals, certain his illness is fatal but determined to fight his fate:
What daring god torments my body thus,
And seeks to conquer mighty Tamburlaine?
Shall sickness prove me now to be a man,
That have been term'd the terror of the world?
Techelles and the rest, come, take your swords,
And threaten him whose hand afflicts my soul:
Come, let us march against the powers of heaven,
And set black streamers in the firmament,
To signify the slaughter of the gods.
Ah, friends, what shall I do? I cannot stand.
Come, carry me to war against the gods,
That thus envy the health of Tamburlaine...
Why, shall I sit and languish in this pain?
No, strike the drums, and, in revenge of this,
Come, let us charge our spears, and pierce his breast
Whose shoulders bear the axis of the world,
That, if I perish, heaven and earth may fade...
See, where my slave, the ugly monster Death,
Shaking and quivering, pale and wan for fear,
Stands aiming at me with his murdering dart,
Who flies away at every glance I give,
And, when I look away, comes stealing on!—
Villain, away, and hie thee to the field!
I and mine army come to load thy back
With souls of thousand mangled carcasses.—
Look, where he goes! but, see, he comes again,
Because I stay! Techelles, let us march,
And weary Death with bearing souls to hell.
November 26, 2016
The Folly of Pride
16 January 2014
I have noticed that there seems to be a lot less reviews of this play than there are of the first one – actually on Goodreads there is only one. Maybe it is because most people either read the two plays as a unity, or maybe they did read both plays, but if they wrote a review, they would have simply written it on the first one. This I can understand because it seems that there is little difference between the two plays with the exception of one act, that being act 1 in the first play (where Tamburlaine first comes onto the scene) and act 5 in the second play (where Tamburlaine finally takes one step two far and ends up dying of a disease).
The reason I say that is because the first play seems to, after the first act, simply have another group of kings appear making statements as to how their army is superior to Tamburlaine, and then they go to war with Tamburlaine and end up losing, and the kings are either captured and reduced to animals, or they end up killing themselves so as to retain at least some form of self respect (in the Ancient World, the act of suicide was seen as an honourable action, especially if it was a choice between poverty, imprisonment, or death – which in many cases is probably still the same today), and then it repeats itself in the next act.
A part of me was hoping to see that what this play encompassed was Tamburlaine's fall, but instead it seemed to have him becoming more powerful and, to put it bluntly, more cocky. In this play we have a number of kings who are defeated in battle, and by the end of the play are pulling Tamburlaine's carriage as if they were horses. Also it seems that we have Tamburlaine extending his kingdon into Egypt, the Levant, and Turkey, and even crossing into Greece and the Balkans, however, near the end of the play, he suddenly decides to turn around and make a path towards Babylon.
This I found rather odd because one would have expected that if he had been conquering the lands off to the west, why would he leave a fortress in the middle of his empire undefeated. Most, if not all, generals worth their salt would at least attempt to make an alliance with them, but would not leave them standing because capturing it would have been a little too hard. This was the case with Tyre and Alexander the Great, and as it turned out, capturing Tyre was not all that difficult anyway, despite the fact that it had been moved onto an island just off shore after Nebucadnezzar had successfully defeated them about three to four hundred years earlier.
However, as I have suggested before, and will continue to suggest, and that is that this play is, to an extent, about the fall of Tamburlaine, despite the fact that most of this occurs in the last act. Here he has finally captured Babylon and is in the library ordering the books be burnt and he is brought a copy of the Koran (written in this play as Alcoran). When presented with the book Tamburlaine mocks the religion upon which it is based, claiming that if Allah had any power whatsoever then he would have intervened and prevented Tamburlaine from conquering all of the said territory (despite the fact that the real Tamburlaine was actually a Muslim and this event would probably not have happened).
It is interesting that Marlowe takes this approach, namely having Tamburlaine mocking a god and the having the said god step out and demonstrating his power by inflicting Tamburlaine with a disease. It is true that the Bible says 'God shall not be mocked' but we see a lot of Bible burning and god mocking in our society (at least towards Christianity) and I must admit that we do get the same statements directed against Islam, and we do not see hordes of god mockers succumbing to disease, though I must admit that in the end everybody dies.
I guess the idea that comes out here is how, in many cases, people like Tamburlaine will, in many cases, end up overreaching and becoming overconfident in their abilities. We see that at the end of the first play where Tamburlaine had already dreamed of taking over the world, and at the end of this play, as he lies on his deathbed, looks at what he hasn't conquered, and then anoints his son to continue where he left off. It is interesting how when we review our lives, many of us look at what we have not accomplished, and actually forget what we have accomplished, and regret what we haven't done rather than look at what we have done.
16 January 2014
I have noticed that there seems to be a lot less reviews of this play than there are of the first one – actually on Goodreads there is only one. Maybe it is because most people either read the two plays as a unity, or maybe they did read both plays, but if they wrote a review, they would have simply written it on the first one. This I can understand because it seems that there is little difference between the two plays with the exception of one act, that being act 1 in the first play (where Tamburlaine first comes onto the scene) and act 5 in the second play (where Tamburlaine finally takes one step two far and ends up dying of a disease).
The reason I say that is because the first play seems to, after the first act, simply have another group of kings appear making statements as to how their army is superior to Tamburlaine, and then they go to war with Tamburlaine and end up losing, and the kings are either captured and reduced to animals, or they end up killing themselves so as to retain at least some form of self respect (in the Ancient World, the act of suicide was seen as an honourable action, especially if it was a choice between poverty, imprisonment, or death – which in many cases is probably still the same today), and then it repeats itself in the next act.
A part of me was hoping to see that what this play encompassed was Tamburlaine's fall, but instead it seemed to have him becoming more powerful and, to put it bluntly, more cocky. In this play we have a number of kings who are defeated in battle, and by the end of the play are pulling Tamburlaine's carriage as if they were horses. Also it seems that we have Tamburlaine extending his kingdon into Egypt, the Levant, and Turkey, and even crossing into Greece and the Balkans, however, near the end of the play, he suddenly decides to turn around and make a path towards Babylon.
This I found rather odd because one would have expected that if he had been conquering the lands off to the west, why would he leave a fortress in the middle of his empire undefeated. Most, if not all, generals worth their salt would at least attempt to make an alliance with them, but would not leave them standing because capturing it would have been a little too hard. This was the case with Tyre and Alexander the Great, and as it turned out, capturing Tyre was not all that difficult anyway, despite the fact that it had been moved onto an island just off shore after Nebucadnezzar had successfully defeated them about three to four hundred years earlier.
However, as I have suggested before, and will continue to suggest, and that is that this play is, to an extent, about the fall of Tamburlaine, despite the fact that most of this occurs in the last act. Here he has finally captured Babylon and is in the library ordering the books be burnt and he is brought a copy of the Koran (written in this play as Alcoran). When presented with the book Tamburlaine mocks the religion upon which it is based, claiming that if Allah had any power whatsoever then he would have intervened and prevented Tamburlaine from conquering all of the said territory (despite the fact that the real Tamburlaine was actually a Muslim and this event would probably not have happened).
It is interesting that Marlowe takes this approach, namely having Tamburlaine mocking a god and the having the said god step out and demonstrating his power by inflicting Tamburlaine with a disease. It is true that the Bible says 'God shall not be mocked' but we see a lot of Bible burning and god mocking in our society (at least towards Christianity) and I must admit that we do get the same statements directed against Islam, and we do not see hordes of god mockers succumbing to disease, though I must admit that in the end everybody dies.
I guess the idea that comes out here is how, in many cases, people like Tamburlaine will, in many cases, end up overreaching and becoming overconfident in their abilities. We see that at the end of the first play where Tamburlaine had already dreamed of taking over the world, and at the end of this play, as he lies on his deathbed, looks at what he hasn't conquered, and then anoints his son to continue where he left off. It is interesting how when we review our lives, many of us look at what we have not accomplished, and actually forget what we have accomplished, and regret what we haven't done rather than look at what we have done.
December 25, 2020
I mentioned in my review of Part I that Marlowe can really only conclude the narrative two ways in Part II: Tamburlaine continues to conquer or he begins his rapid downfall. Oddly, Marlowe splits the difference. While Tamburlaine continues his tyrannical victories, he sees his personal life erode: his wife dies, one of his sons doesn't want to be a warrior (which is cowardice, in Tamburlaine's eyes), and Tamburlaine himself grows ill and dies. In short, no amount of lust for glory and power can change the fact that Tamburlaine is human. Death will take all in the end. Not a very original conclusion; likewise, not a very memorable drama.
September 20, 2021
so are we all gonna just ignore that this man just straight up murdered his son….
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 15, 2021
Ein paar Jahre sind seit Teil 1 vergangen. Tamburlaine und Zenocrate haben mittlerweile 3 Söhne, aber Tamburlaine zieht weiter durch den Mittelmeerraum und erobert Stadt um Stadt. Zenocrate stirbt recht jung, der jüngste Sohn ist noch ein eher kleiner Junge. Tamburlaine nimmt seine Söhne mit in den Krieg, wie es scheint, mehrere Jahre, denn die Kinder sind irgendwann so weit, dass sie auch in die Schlacht ziehen sollen, wohl Teenager. Einer seiner Söhne jedoch ist bedachter und nicht so blutrünstig wie sein Vater. Er liebt eher die schönen Künste, Frauen und Kartenspiel, daher tötet Tamburlain ihne einfach. Das bringt zwar einige Potentanten gegen ihn auf, da immer klarer wird, dass er ein größenwahnsinniges Monster ist, dass sich als Gott sieht. Aber dennoch traut sich keiner, ihm Paroli zu bieten, nicht einmal, als er den Koran verbrennt oder gefangengenommene Könige als Pferde seinen Streitwagen ziehen lässt. Größenwahn, dein Name ist Tamburlaine. Aber auch größenwahnsinnige Monster sterben irgendwann und Tamburlaine ist es nicht vergönnt, auf dem Schlachtfeld zu sterben.
Dieses Stück ist wie ein Kriegsfilm. Eroberung und grausame Handlung auf Eroberung und grausame Handlung. Gefangene können kein Pardon erwarten. Er ermordet alle und jeden, die sich ihm nicht sofort unterwerfen und das ist in diesem Stück auf der Bühne ausgespielt. Ein splater und Kriegsstück, das Grausamkeit auf Grausamkeit darstellt, der Vorgänger des Kriegsfilms oder Actionfilms nur ohne die Stunts und die humorigen Elemente.
Klar, für solchen Stoff gibt es sicherlich männliches Publikum, die sich so was gerne anschauen. Ich kann des Stück so gar nichts abgewinnen.
Dieses Stück ist wie ein Kriegsfilm. Eroberung und grausame Handlung auf Eroberung und grausame Handlung. Gefangene können kein Pardon erwarten. Er ermordet alle und jeden, die sich ihm nicht sofort unterwerfen und das ist in diesem Stück auf der Bühne ausgespielt. Ein splater und Kriegsstück, das Grausamkeit auf Grausamkeit darstellt, der Vorgänger des Kriegsfilms oder Actionfilms nur ohne die Stunts und die humorigen Elemente.
Klar, für solchen Stoff gibt es sicherlich männliches Publikum, die sich so was gerne anschauen. Ich kann des Stück so gar nichts abgewinnen.
August 31, 2022
Fascinating to see Marlowe's skills developing in "real time" so to speak. It's still full of magnificent but very long speeches, but there is much more action presented on-stage, more balance, some comic relief, some character development.
And, of course, Marlowe's language. He was still only in his early twenties at this point, but it's clear he's getting to grips with the theatricality of theatre, so to speak.
And, of course, Marlowe's language. He was still only in his early twenties at this point, but it's clear he's getting to grips with the theatricality of theatre, so to speak.
July 23, 2025
Tragedy becomes more effective when the character doesn't learn from his mistake. Pride was his weakness, and he never learned to better himself for it. He, in fact, died and received damnation (losing his earthly power in this play's case) fully, thinking he was right all along. If he wasn't ill anymore, he would repeat all the violent acts he'd done before. His pride and ambition are then his ultimate tragedy, keeping him from ever changing.
But that aside, couldn't Marlowe, idk ask or research the easy task as to whom muslims worship? No way he thought Muhammad PBUH is a God astaghfirullah. Very English of him lol
But that aside, couldn't Marlowe, idk ask or research the easy task as to whom muslims worship? No way he thought Muhammad PBUH is a God astaghfirullah. Very English of him lol
January 14, 2018
Boy how times change. This is not the fresh, clever and light-hearted adventures of an unexpectedly successful chancer. These are the bitter and petty acts of vengeance of a lonely, betrayed old man. Only the christian God gets a positive look in here - Tamburlaine the Great Part 2 is more tragedy than jolly adventure.
February 10, 2021
Readers or audiences hoping that Tamburlaine Part 2 would head in a different direction, and that the warrior ruler would finally meet defeat will be disappointed. In many respects, Part 2 is more of the same. Tamburlaine attacks other countries; he uniformly defeats them; he humiliates captive rulers and commits atrocities.
This time there are a few changes. Bajazeth’s son Callapine appears as Tamburlaine’s slave, but he escapes with the help of his keeper, Alameda. While Callapine proves no match for Tamburlaine in battle, he is not killed or captured, and neither is the treacherous Alameda. For the first time it seems that Tamburlaine does not have things his own way.
While Fate still favours Tamburlaine on the battlefield, he does face other enemies that are beyond his control. Much of his time is spent grooming his sons to be warriors, but one of the boys, Calyphas, has no taste for battle, and refuses to fight so Tamburlaine kills him.
We should not detect any anti-war message here, nor in any of the appalling actions of Tamburlaine. Calyphas’ distaste for war is seen as mere effeminate cowardice. The barbaric acts of Tamburlaine are dwelt on with ghoulish relish rather than horror, and Marlowe continues to have pleasure in seeing the indestructible ruler conquer all enemies but one.
That one is a higher power beyond our own. It is death. For all his ranting and boasting, Tamburlaine is powerless to prevent his wife Zenocrate from dying. Later it is his own turn, and he dies still dissatisfied with his many gains because he greedily wanted more.
The presence of death is perhaps the one concession to there being a force that can stop Tamburlaine, but there is no suggestion that it is the gods here. Tamburlaine constantly defies the gods in blasphemous terms, and receives no punishment for his actions.
One of the play’s most notorious moments is when Tamburlaine burns a copy of the Qu’ran and other Islamic writings to indicate his contempt for Mahomet. Naturally such a scene prompts accusations of Islamophobia.
One stage production chose to change the burning to less specific sacred writings to avoid being inflammatory. Naturally far right groups criticised this decision, but in the present climate, it was probably a sensible decision.
We should not change the original text however. Marlowe was not an Islamophobe in the modern sense. It is unlikely that he had ever even met a Muslim. On the whole, Marlowe in Tamburlaine has little good to say about any religion. A Muslim leader keeps faith with a treaty while a devious Christian leader breaks it, and suffers defeat and death, for example.
Overall though Marlowe makes more concessions to Christianity, with one or two characters expressing mildly favourable statements about it, in contrast to the consistent attacks on Islam. This reflects only Marlowe’s country of origin and likely audience however, and should not be seen as making any specific point. I suspect that Marlowe focused his generally blasphemous view on life at Islam because he knew that he could get away with this in a Christian country.
The Tamburlaine of Part 2 is a more crude and unpleasant figure than before. He murders his own son. He treats captive rulers badly who deserve it less than Bajazeth in the first play. He burns down an entire city just because his wife died in it. He slaughters everyone in a besieged city that held out against him with obvious glee. Perhaps that is why the poetry here seems less beautiful than in the first Part.
What is lacking here is any moral judgement against Tamburlaine. His actions are criticised, but only by weaker people. There is no suggestion that Tamburlaine’s actions are anything less than laudable or acceptable.
For these reasons Part 2 is inferior to Part 1, and the play cannot count among the richest gems of English literature. However there is an energy and gusto in Marlowe’s style, and the play is certainly never dull.
This time there are a few changes. Bajazeth’s son Callapine appears as Tamburlaine’s slave, but he escapes with the help of his keeper, Alameda. While Callapine proves no match for Tamburlaine in battle, he is not killed or captured, and neither is the treacherous Alameda. For the first time it seems that Tamburlaine does not have things his own way.
While Fate still favours Tamburlaine on the battlefield, he does face other enemies that are beyond his control. Much of his time is spent grooming his sons to be warriors, but one of the boys, Calyphas, has no taste for battle, and refuses to fight so Tamburlaine kills him.
We should not detect any anti-war message here, nor in any of the appalling actions of Tamburlaine. Calyphas’ distaste for war is seen as mere effeminate cowardice. The barbaric acts of Tamburlaine are dwelt on with ghoulish relish rather than horror, and Marlowe continues to have pleasure in seeing the indestructible ruler conquer all enemies but one.
That one is a higher power beyond our own. It is death. For all his ranting and boasting, Tamburlaine is powerless to prevent his wife Zenocrate from dying. Later it is his own turn, and he dies still dissatisfied with his many gains because he greedily wanted more.
The presence of death is perhaps the one concession to there being a force that can stop Tamburlaine, but there is no suggestion that it is the gods here. Tamburlaine constantly defies the gods in blasphemous terms, and receives no punishment for his actions.
One of the play’s most notorious moments is when Tamburlaine burns a copy of the Qu’ran and other Islamic writings to indicate his contempt for Mahomet. Naturally such a scene prompts accusations of Islamophobia.
One stage production chose to change the burning to less specific sacred writings to avoid being inflammatory. Naturally far right groups criticised this decision, but in the present climate, it was probably a sensible decision.
We should not change the original text however. Marlowe was not an Islamophobe in the modern sense. It is unlikely that he had ever even met a Muslim. On the whole, Marlowe in Tamburlaine has little good to say about any religion. A Muslim leader keeps faith with a treaty while a devious Christian leader breaks it, and suffers defeat and death, for example.
Overall though Marlowe makes more concessions to Christianity, with one or two characters expressing mildly favourable statements about it, in contrast to the consistent attacks on Islam. This reflects only Marlowe’s country of origin and likely audience however, and should not be seen as making any specific point. I suspect that Marlowe focused his generally blasphemous view on life at Islam because he knew that he could get away with this in a Christian country.
The Tamburlaine of Part 2 is a more crude and unpleasant figure than before. He murders his own son. He treats captive rulers badly who deserve it less than Bajazeth in the first play. He burns down an entire city just because his wife died in it. He slaughters everyone in a besieged city that held out against him with obvious glee. Perhaps that is why the poetry here seems less beautiful than in the first Part.
What is lacking here is any moral judgement against Tamburlaine. His actions are criticised, but only by weaker people. There is no suggestion that Tamburlaine’s actions are anything less than laudable or acceptable.
For these reasons Part 2 is inferior to Part 1, and the play cannot count among the richest gems of English literature. However there is an energy and gusto in Marlowe’s style, and the play is certainly never dull.
November 24, 2024
The second part of the story of the low-born scythian shepherd turned bloodthirsty autocrat Tamburlaine picks up basically where the first part left off. It still contains plenty of extreme actions, betrayals, and filial murder that could shock audiences, but it feels more blunted at this point after so many terrible things have happened. And a big chunk of the story seems to consist of countervailing forces conspiring together and tracking all of the lands that Tamburlaine has thus far taken over.
One of the more interesting aspects is Tamburlaine’s relationship with his sons. Two are just as cold hearted and ready for war as he is while the third is more of a mama’s boy who wants the benefits of the family’s military campaigns without any involvement in them. Even if he’s wrong to slaughter as many people as he does, at least Tamburlaine does convey to his children that if they want his power, they have to get their hands bloody as well.
The other fascinating moment is that of the tyrant’s death. The conventional wisdom is that he defeats himself by overstepping his bounds in the cosmos. He may take the physical world by force, but when he proclaims, “And thou shalt see a man greater than Mahomet,” he takes on the gods and causes his own demise. Since no god materially intervenes, he could also just die from a sudden sickness, which would speak to the randomness of the universe. And this, I think I prefer.
One of the more interesting aspects is Tamburlaine’s relationship with his sons. Two are just as cold hearted and ready for war as he is while the third is more of a mama’s boy who wants the benefits of the family’s military campaigns without any involvement in them. Even if he’s wrong to slaughter as many people as he does, at least Tamburlaine does convey to his children that if they want his power, they have to get their hands bloody as well.
The other fascinating moment is that of the tyrant’s death. The conventional wisdom is that he defeats himself by overstepping his bounds in the cosmos. He may take the physical world by force, but when he proclaims, “And thou shalt see a man greater than Mahomet,” he takes on the gods and causes his own demise. Since no god materially intervenes, he could also just die from a sudden sickness, which would speak to the randomness of the universe. And this, I think I prefer.
September 12, 2021
Truly one of the dumbest death scenes ever but also amazing that a play with so much happening had so little actually happen. I can imagine this along w Part One as like, the not so great but highly enjoyable blockbuster action films of the day. The substance is meh but it’s fun and lots of people die and there’s blood and guts and some emotion and that’s really what you want from your entertainment right whether it’s 1587 or 2021 yeah.
February 9, 2020
Nauseatingly hyperbolic and temper tantrum-y. My main takeaway is: am I supposed to root for a tyrannical war-hero who enslaves men and rapes women while he takes over the world? That might have been cool in the 17th century but now we have great things like Brexit and colonialism. I get why we love Marlowe - the language is sonnet like gorgeousness - but overall 4/10 for content.
December 21, 2017
Terrific, very readable. Reminiscent of Alexander the Great. Full of bluster and bravado. Realistic representation of father/son relationship. Tamburlaine is the quintessential megalomaniacal, conquering warrior. He is also iconic of the insatiable nature of man. 5 stars.
August 25, 2021
A very confusing end to an extremely tedious play. If what I'm supposed to see is 'the limitless assertion of the individual will' together with 'the ironies and paradoxe of human striving' (David Bevington), then Marlowe has done a very poor job.
February 26, 2025
more violence more conqueroring. interesting ending though where this war criminal tyrant man pretty much gets off scott free. mayhaps the real tragedy is that his tyrant sons will ascend the throne and continue his tyranny
February 19, 2018
Friggin brütal
Read
June 7, 2020Jkm
January 26, 2022
A very different world to today or even to Shakespeare but I found the plot and characters unpleasant but the poetry was very good. I had to put my brain into a very different world
April 25, 2022
Damn Christopher Marlowe’s writing is incredible. This play wasn’t for me but I love the writing so much.
August 26, 2022
this sequel was entirely unnecessary and just as mediocre as the first part but somehow it's so entertaining i want to see it performed so bad i was born in the wrong generation
May 4, 2023
More of the same! Seems not to be the pen of the Marlowe who writ Faustus.
March 6, 2024
what???????????
September 6, 2024
Whereas Part 1 had Damascus, a city in Egypt, Part 2 had Damasco, a city I Soria. I wonder what I am missing here.
And I'm also in awe of how well the Romans must have indoctrinated the peoples in and around their empire for even the Muslims to worship Jove, pray to Apollo and end their lives in Dis where Pluto reigns.
And I'm also in awe of how well the Romans must have indoctrinated the peoples in and around their empire for even the Muslims to worship Jove, pray to Apollo and end their lives in Dis where Pluto reigns.
February 21, 2025
So many people die and for what
January 5, 2026
we do wish our tyrants will stop taking their fear of death out on us
February 6, 2026
rip to two baddies
February 15, 2022
2 1/2💫
June 27, 2025
underwhelming ending
May 29, 2016
I thought Part One was more enjoyable. Yet, the symbolism present in this play is enjoyable.
Read
August 2, 2017sequels are never as good and that certainly stands true with Tamburlaine, but the monologues around Zenocrate's death scene would be so cool to perform. Also Olympia tricking Theridamas was freaking hilarious. Gulliable dude.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews