The Rhetoric of Christopher Marlowe’s Tamburlaine Essays -- Christophe

The Rhetoric of Christopher Marlowes Tamburlaine The hero of Christopher Marlowes Tamburlaine the Great did non lead the life of either ordinary Scythian shepherd. Through aside the course of the drama, the once lowly Tamburlaine is bent on a path of unstoppable subjugation, upheld as much by intense personal charisma and power of destination as by the strength of his sword. He exemplifies this eloquence through unwrap his many manner of speakinges in the play, not least of which is his Thirst of Reign address to the defeated usurper of the Iranian crown. Tamburlaines speech is delivered with the intention of justifying, to Cosroe and alone others present, the righteousness of his own ambitions, and inviting them to piece of ground in the same. He achieves this end by skillfully employing in his speech Aristotles three canonized methods of persuasion logos, pathos, and ethos. Tamburlaine begins his address with a deadly use of ethos, an appe al to his own credibility as a leader worthy of respect. He does this by comparing his own desire for the fragrancy of a crown to that of decently Jove, who threw his father Ops down from the heavenly hold in for this same reason. By this line of persuasion, Tamburlaine is following in the very footsteps of the mighty god, and fulfilling a goal established as worthy by a most divine precedent. This comparison serves to glorify his bloody path, and subtly clarifies him as a mighty persona in majestic uprising, not merely a violent, sheep-herding rebel. Tamburlaines bolstering of his own person is followed by a defense of the very act of ambitious conquest by means of logos, a logical appeal to reason. He argues that NatureDoth teach us all to have aspiring... ...nd morally questionable to audience and readers alike. The depiction of ruthless conquest as an admirable and heroic endeavor could only be through successfully if it were shielded by language as beaut iful as it is capable of persuasion. Despite this quality of speech, there is a certain flunk in the address that the modern reader is privy to the idea of tetrad warring elements composing our frames is quaintly erroneous. Aristotle himself would be quick to point out that a logical argument based on faulty assumptions is a faulty argument, so Tamburlaines use of logos in this speech rings somewhat hollow on ears which can pick out the flaw in his persuasions. Not that this flaw would come as a surprise to an educated modern reader, as they would likely already scruple any justification of violent domination that history has repeatedly shown to be far from admirable.