1. Brittney Cannon
Dr. Balizet
Shakespeare and Marlowe
8 May 2014
An Exploration into Power Roles
It is undeniable that strong correlations exist between the plays of
Shakespeare and those of Marlowe. As contemporaries, the influence of Marlowe
played a heavy role in the content of Shakespeare's works; however, thematically,
their plays both contain social commentary upon culture, society, and human
nature. While sometimes these reflections reach the same conclusions, in some
cases they differ dramatically. The Tempest and Tamburlaine the Great are two
works that are not often studied in companion with each other, yet through the
relationships between the characters and the power structures at play within the
texts, both pieces highlight power roles at play, both within the family unit and
amongst society. The characters of these pieces explore power dynamics within
various settings and relationships, revealing perceived truths about the nature of
power.
The most prominent experiments of power in these two plays involves the
surprisingly positive results when it goes unchecked. Both works feature a
powerful individual that meets no downfall, reaching only greater heights of
power until ultimately achieving success in his endeavors. Within The Tempest,
Prospero is a man talented in the art of magic and in control of a sizable
collection of similarly fantastical minions. Throughout the action of the play,
Prospero meets resistance, none of which slows or impedes his actions or

2. intentions. Similarly, in Tamburlaine the Great, the title character is a warrior of
humble upbringing but impressive physical stature. His ultimate goal is
essentially world domination, and he achieves that easily. His only reservations
or hesitations occur when he has declared battle upon his love's father; seeing her
distress over the situation is the closest Tamburlaine ever comes to any measure
of defeat. The limitless power of these two characters breaks away from
traditional literary conventions, as infallible characters cannot be related to by
the audience. It is through other means that these characters are empathized
with and supported. For example, the value of Tamburlaine's character is gauged
through the loyalty and fortitude with which is friends and companions support
him:
We are his friends, and if the Persian king
Should offer present dukedoms to our state,
We think it loss to make exchange for that
We are assured of by our friend's success. (1.2.214-7)
Upon witnessing this display of loyalty, the audience feels more inclined to favor
his character. Likewise, in Prospero's case, his sympathy, judiciousness, and
ultimately friendship with his minion Ariel raises emotions of admiration and
appreciation, such as during his final dismissal of his servant, saying, “My Ariel,
chick, / That is thy charge. Then to the elements / Be free, and fare thou well”
(316-8). These twocharacters elicit sympathy and understanding despite their
untouchable and unbeatable power. The likeability of such a character as well as
they their characterization as protagonists of their respective introduces the
possibility of a benevolent, but absolute ruler. While the concept of such

3. characters seems impossible and creates a distance between the audience and the
omnipotent character, Tamburlaine and Prospero manage to present that
possibility in an unthreatening fashion and their lack of demise at the conclusion
of their respective works does not pose an issue.
Another power dynamic presented in both works appears through the
motif of a father's power over her daughter. Its is on this point that
representations within the two plays come to differing conclusions. Tobegin
with, the Renaissance family does not follow the typical familial structure of
modern relationships, but rather “the ideals of the Florentine family...embodied
architecturally in the Renaissance palace, which not only created the perfect
setting for the family's retreat for into domesticity, but also symbolized its
aspirations for dynastic continuity and prestige” (Diefendorf 663). This emphasis
upon the importance of the continuity of a family name suggests that the
importance placed upon each family member was not based on virtues such as
love and loyalty but rather potential for benefitting the family ultimately. While
daughters could not perpetuate the name, she could bring honor and prestige to
the family through a profitable marriage that promised upward movement
through the social classes, raising the reputation of the family name along with
her by association. In fact, this is exactly what Prosperosets into motion through
enchanting a romance between his very own daughter and the Prince, ensuring
that regardless of the outcome of his struggle to reclaim his usurped title, his
daughter and thus his family line would be secured by their relationship and
presumed future marriage. The tale of Tamburlaine the Great illuminates quite a
differing relationship between father and daughter. This power struggle is

4. illuminated through the relationship between Tamburlaine's love interest
Zenocrate and her father, the Sultan. Throughout the majority of the text,
Zenocrate and her father are separated as Tamburlaine brings her into his
company at the very early stages of the play. Eventually, Tamburlaine comes to a
point where he is forced to challenge his beloved's father in an attempt to
conquer his land. Zenocrate pleads with him that he spare her father, but
Tamburlaine is prohibited from backing away from this challenge by his honor
and pride. Zenocrate waits and observes in horror as her love follows through
with his word. Zenocrate and her father are later reunited as his life was spared,
but in that moment, Zenocrate chose her love over her husband, making a clear
statement as to who held power over her. In contrast, Miranda, Prospero's
daughter, allows her father to keep her love imprisoned and enslaved throughout
Prospero's entire secret plot to have them wed. Shakespeare's characters behave
upon the principle that the father has absolute power and control over his
daughter and all aspects of her life, while Marlowe's characters assert that once a
daughter finds love, she abandons her father's control for that of her beloved. In
both cases, the question begs to be answered as to why the daughters defer power
over them to the men in their lives, which can be explained by an examination of
the role of women in the Renaissance:
Women were characterized and largely controlled not in relation to
their natural capacities (although medical tradition conceived of
women as imperfect men, by nature incapable of higher thought
and rationality), but according to a set of views that denied they
were capable of entering fully into human culture other than the

5. culture of the household or family. (“Renaissance”)
These women allowed themselves tobe controlled by the men in their life,
because they existed in a culture that saw them as subordinate to men and
incapable of being autonomous. Thus, Prospero manipulated his daughter on
behalf of what would greater benefit their family as a whole in the long run, while
Tamburlaine ignored the concerns of his beloved as her capacity for
understanding could not take his pride and honor into account given the
situation. While both women are controlled by powerful male figures in their
lives, Zenocrate represents the ideal of a woman's lord being her suitor over her
father while Miranda operates on the virtue that her father knows what is best for
her in the long run and her feelings take a secondary position in governing her
life.
The final assessment of the power dynamics represented in these two plays
takes a look at the historical significance of social hierarchies during the
Renaissance and depicts that the social mobility expressed in these two works
reflects upon the unrest and desire for upward movement of the Renaissance
middle class. Each protagonist challenges the governing individuals in power,
defying the social limitations of the Renaissance social hierarchy. During the
Renaissance, economic mobility of the middle class was made possible, and the
lower classes that were forced to remain with those of their rank throughout the
middle ages were eager for an attempt at upward mobility now that the economic
state of Europe was in a vulnerable state:
The long term effects of plague and agricultural depression were to
assist the change from feudalism to bastard feudalism which other

6. developments in social and political life were producing ... The lords
… found their incomes decaying and their assets deteriorating, a
fact which helps to explain their violent unrest, cut-throat
competition, and lawless and ruthless fight for advantages. (Siegel
478)
According to G. R. Elton, “bastard feudalism” is defined as “the patronage system
in which, although superficially the relationship continued to be feudal, relying
on on personal loyalties; in actuality it was based on payment, though the
unstable tendencies in it were balanced by the persistence of personal family
ties” (3). Tamburlaine is the most appropriate representative of the attitude of
the middle class toward kinship with one another while simultaneously desiring
greatly toupset the upper class and gain the title he was denied by birth, as he
professes in his monologue during his first encounter with Zenocrate:
But lady, this fair face and heavenly hue
Must grace his bed that conquers Asia
And means to be a terror tothe world,
Measuring the limits of his emprey
By east and west as Phoebus doth his course.
Lie here, ye weeds that I disdain to wear!
This complete armour and this curtle-axe
Are adjuncts more beseeming Tamburlaine.
And, madam, whatsoever you esteem
Of this success, and loss unvaluéd,
Both may invest you empress of the East;

7. And these that seem but silly country swains
May have the leading of so great an host
As with their weight shall make the mountains quake,
Even as when windy exhalations,
Fighting for passage tilt within the earth. (1.2.36-51)
Tamburlaine's desire to cast off his shepherd's clothing and pursue his elite
aspirations is emblematic of the restlessness amongst the lower classes now
presented with a newfound possibility for upward mobility, becoming an icon of
hope due to his complete success conquering all of Asia and marrying the
daughter of a sultan after coming from a humble shepherd's household. Amongst
the classes, there was certain tone of unity that encouraged loyalty to others of
one's same rank while simultaneously inciting class warfare, as “their conflicts
were class conflicts; their political aspirations were based in social class; and
their political behavior was class behavior. They were economic beings whose
ambitions and interests stemmed from the imperatives of class” (Brudney 511). A
person's entire character and identity was identified by his social status and class
identification. Thus, it is having his title stolen from him that leads Prospero to
set into action his plot in The Tempest. Having been born of nobility only to have
his title usurped by his own brother, his entire motivation behind causing the
shipwreck, enchanting Ferdinand the prince to fall in love with his daughter, and
terrorizing the nobles that abandoned him and allowed for his exile with displays
of his magical abilities was to regain his status as a noble rather than an exiled
man on a deserted island with no other company aside from his daughter and his
minions. Tamburlaine and Prospero both challenge the Renaissance social class

8. system in unique ways; Tamburlaine by asserting his physical prowess and
simply taking the social status that he desires by force and Prospero by
challenging the hierarchy that unseated him and exiled him, forcing them into
returning his title and marrying his daughter to the prince.
The two plays of The Tempest and Tamburlaine the Great, while not the
closest related of Shakespeare and Marlowe's plays regarding plot and subject
matter, both raise strong implications about power. The main characters in both
plays explores an individual with no opponents that pose a reasonable threat to
their power and have no ultimate downfall. Their power continues to grow until
each individual reaches their intended goal, at which time the plays conclude.
Characters with no weakness or foes of equal strength defy the literary norms and
express a unique power dynamic among the fellow characters. Similarly, the
plays both challenge societal hierarchies by breaking out from their nobility
imposed enclosures, whether literal exile or exile of the lower class, demanding
the social distinctions that they feel they deserve and then claiming them as
theirs. Tamburlaine and Prosperoboth represent power figures, however, in
relation to the women in their lives their role is slightly different. Prospero is a
father who manipulates his daughter and charms her into falling in love with a
prince so that they may marry, and his social elitism is further secured. His
control over his daughter is absolute. This reflects the relationship between
Tamburlaine and his love Zenocrate, but as his love is also all controlling of her,
he is able to sway her to his side, even to the extent that she continues to love him
despite his possibly killing her father. While Prospero's power draws his
daughter closer to his power, Tamburlaine conversely draws a daughter away

9. from the power of her father. These twoimpressive men present a unique and
infallible source of power, representing the mindset of the general population of
the time, committing to taking the power that they desire and achieving it all.

10. Works Cited:
Brudney, Kent M. “Machiavelli on Social Class and Class Conflict.” Political
Theory. 12.4 (1984) : 507-19.
Diefendorf, Barbara B. “Family Culture, Renaissance Culture.” Renaissance
Quarterly. 40.4 (1987) : 661-81.
Elton, G. R. England Under The Tudors. London: Methuen, 1955.
Marlowe, Christopher. “Tamburlaine the Great.” Doctor Faustus and Other
Plays. Ed. David Bevington and Eric Rasmussen. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2008. 1-68.
“Renaissance.” Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender. Vol. 4. Detroit: Macmillan
Reference USA, 2007 : (1257-8).
Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004.
Siegel, Paul N. “Monarchy, Aristocracy and Bourgeoisie in Shakespeare's History
Plays.” Science and Society. 42.4 (1978) : 478-82.