This is plausible, but it does not settle the matter. If the plays are taken in the order 1and 2 Tamburlaine, The few of Malta, Edward II, and Doctor Faustus, they can be seen to illustrate an increasingly defiant assertion of individualism, followed by the eventual recognition of its necessary limitations. In 1 and 2 Tamburlaine Marlowe’s aspiring hero is a glorious conqueror. Then, just as Graham Greene in The Power and the Glory challengingly focuses upon an unprepossessing representative of the priesthood he wishes to justify, so Marlowe in The few of Malta and Edward II focuses first upon a villainous and then upon a feeble and wilful exponent of the individualism he upholds. Finally, in Doctor Faustus he returns to a more admirable protagonist in order to express his continuing sympathy with the aspiring mind at the same time as he sadly recognizes that this must come to terms with realities both natural and supernatural if it is not to bring about its own downfall. As for the difference in structure between Edward II and the other plays, that is best explained by reference to the belief that Marlowe wrote these other plays for a company dominated by the great tragic actor, Edward Alleyn, whereas he wrote Edward II for a company in which talent was more equally distributed.