ABSTRACT
Unlike Edward II and the plays of Doctor Faustus, which explicitly examine the processes of writing and reading, the two parts of Tamburlaine do not stage inscription and reception. Bearing a forceful testimony to the questionable value of generic coherence and chronological exactitude, the dispute which characterizes Tamburlaine scholarship calls for a fresh approach to the dramas. Tamburlaine's working words have become the subject of much critical attention. Refusing Tamburlaine's suggested repast, Bajazeth is threatened with enforced cannibalism. Tamburlaine's language system is consequently reliant upon consent, rather than an ability to coerce. The Tamburlaine plays are located at the centre of a network of texts, some of which are sources and some dramatic successors. In an effort to make his sons more like himself, Tamburlaine encourages his children to compete for rhetorical supremacy.
