Sunday, May 3, 2009

Tamburlaine as Antichrist: Overview

I originally started to look at Tamburlaine as an Antichrist figure while sitting in class the first or second day we discussed the text. Looking back at my notes, I have a bubbled section where I pondered all the possibilities of just who Tamburlaine is. His character initially perplexed me: early on the reader learns he comes from simple means, yet his speech is anything but. Tamburlaine is eloquent and persuasive, and contrasting him against Mycetes and Cosroe only serves to highlight this fact further. My first line of thought was to compare Tamburlaine with other powerful orators: Adolf Hitler, Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, Jesus Christ.

I didn’t immediately jump from here to Antichrist, though. My first thought was that Tamburlaine might be a sort of proto-Byronic hero. If the Early Modern period is now viewed as an earlier part of a continuum that flows into the Romantic period, it would make sense that Byron might have modeled his idealized heroes. I haven’t discredited this theory, but it isn’t what I chose to pursue in my research. I also looked for connections where Tamburlaine would be a continuation of the Old English hero ideal. This stemmed more from my own desire to read Tamburlaine in this way, but it too is an interesting filter through which to view Tamburlaine. All through class, I struggled with the character of Tamburlaine – he was far too rich and complex a character to ignore, and the sublime ease he diffused any situation and won over his enemies with words wouldn’t let this question fade – and eventually I wrote, “Who is Tamburlaine supposed to be? Christ? Antichrist? Good? Evil? Byronic? Human? Superhuman?,” and from there narrowed in on the Antichrist role.

Almost immediately details of this reading clicked into place for me. Tamburlaine was raised a simple shepherd and becomes a powerful leader through his words – the parallels to the life of Jesus here are uncanny. Equally so are the diametric oppositions: Tamburlaine is violent and ruthless, he promises his followers earthly riches, and ostentatiously turns Zenocrate not from whore to saint, as Christ turns Mary Magdalene, but rather conquers the princess constructed as pure, frozen, and white.

My notes from the cultural presentation on Islam have two sentences circled with particular emphasis. The first is about how Islam was a collected, sophisticated, and powerful front England faced, a peer in Imperialism England both feared and revered. And the second simply says “Muslim=Antichrist.” Indeed, in my research I’ve discovered this is often how Muslims are portrayed. While the Jews were considered the “Christ killers,” the Muslims were perhaps less conniving but more dangerous, they were the “Christian killers,” constructed as either without religion or of a religion opposite that of Christianity. The Islamic/Ottoman Empire as a whole had the largest army and navy of the day, and the riches of their trade was seemingly limitless. This was the reality England faced, but its perception of Turk was even more intense: a Turk was anything “other,” be it African, Middle Eastern, Asian, Ottoman, Muslim, Indian, or any of the other terms that were used interchangeably. England had much to fear, but feared more still.

Yet the necessity of at least a working relationship with the Ottoman Empire was undeniable to an England obsessed with expansion, both in geographic boundaries as well as cultural. Queen Elizabeth I forged the first bonds with the Islamic world in the form of trade, and since that moment Early Modern England developed a strange view of the Muslim, fear and respect confounding the nation’s psyche. Because they were partners in trade, and because each Empire expanded into neutral territory, there was never a direct military conflict. England couldn’t stand against the enormous power of the Ottoman army, but the true structure ruling the Ottomans was so complex and prone to fluctuation that it was largely concerned with military affairs within its own borders. Much like the United States and the former Soviet Union, these two superpowers continued uneasy relations with the constant, subtle fear of an imminent, all-out war.

And in this tradition Marlowe seems to construct Tamburlaine. He does some terrible, inhuman things at times, but they are never fully denounced for what they are. Nor does Tamburlaine ever meet true opposition at the end of the first play. If Marlowe had written the second part as a response to the popularity of the first, thus defining the first part as an independent play in and of itself, then Tamburlaine’s story very well might end with Tamburlaine on top. Muslim equates with Antichrist. Tamburlaine equates with Turk (even though he is Scythian). Turk equates with Muslim. And so Tamburlaine, in a chain of convoluted association one might come to expect from an Early Modern worldview, equates with Antichrist. In the big picture, Tamburlaine is representative for the entire Ottoman empire as it is viewed by Early Modern England, yet it is this more immediate view – a hero/antihero who is at the core entirely evil but on the surface commandingly, persuasively good – that represents English attempts to reconcile its fear and respect for the Islamic Empire starting with a single literary individual.

Below you'll find a collection of research and resources pertinent to Tamburlaine as Antichrist. My research paper in full is posted, along with my full bibliography. Additionally, there is a list of sources I consulted or otherwise came across in my research, but did not use. And finally, I've included a collection of primary documents that explore the historical figure Timur, on whom Marlowe based Tamburlaine, Early Modern English views of the Muslim, and depictions of Tamburlaine and/or Timur as Turkish ruler, ruthless conqueror, and complex Anglicization attempts.

Research...

Bibliography
Bartels, Emily. “The Double Vision of the East: Imperialist Self-Construction in Marlowe’s Tamburlaine, Part One.” Renaissance Drama in an Age of Colonization. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press, 1992.

Burton, Jonathan. “Anglo-Ottoman Relations and the Image of the Turk in Tamburlaine.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies. 30:1 (2000): 125-156.

Hookham, Hilda. Tamburlaine The Conqueror. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1962.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers, 2001.

Martin, Richard. “Marlowe’s Tamburlaine and the Language of Romance.” PMLA. 93:2 (1978): 248-264.

Moore, Roger. “The Spirit and the Letter: Marlowe’s Tamburlaine and Elizabethan Religious Radicalism.” Studies in Philology. 99:2 (2002): 123-151.


Further Reading
Burton, Jonathan. Traffic and turning: Islam and English drama, 1579-1624. Newark: University of Delaware press, 2005.

Chew, Samuel. The Crescent and the Rose. New York: Octagon Books, Inc., 1965.

D’Amico, Jack. The Moor in English Renaissance Drama. Tampa: University of Florida Press, 1991.

Grantley, Darryll and Peter Roberts, eds. Christopher Marlowe and English renaissance culture. Aldershot, Hants, England: Scolar Press, c1996

McJannet, Linda. The sultan speaks: dialogue in English plays and histories about the Ottoman Turks. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.


Primary Documents
I have adjusted my post times and dates such that my primary sources all appear as individual links below this entry; however, I'm also including direct links here to all the primary source blog posts. Rather than give each of my twelve sources (eight of them being from the Early Modern period) its own post, I have divided them up accordingly into five different posts; the first four have sources grouped according to a theme, and the final is a primary document I've examined individually.

Who was Timur?
Anglo-Tamburlaine
Tamburlaine as Turkish leader
Tamburlaine at war
"Nevves from the Great Turke"

Primary Text: Who was Timur?

Timur, a popular Asian name meaning "Iron," or Timur-i-Lenk, which translates to "Timur the Lame," is the historical figure upon which Marlowe based his construction of Tamburlaine. Below are illustrations from Hilda Hookham's Tamburlaine the Conqueror. These maps are not primary texts from the Early Modern period, but rather one author's research on the empire of Timur. They are included here to illustrate whom Marlowe portrays in his play. They are important in that they give a accurate historical view of Timur and the scale of his conquests, and as such serve too as illustrations of the character Tamburlaine. Hookham has undertaken the difficult and tedious task of sorting through the multitude of primary documents concerning the history of Timur, publishing Tamburlaine the Conqueror as a concise summation of his history. Thus, while not a primary document perse, I've used her text heavily in my understanding of who Timur was. Additionally, Hookham includes many primary documents in her book, and I have reproduced some of the more helpful and illustrative.Timur's reign was clearly immense, occupying much of today's Middle East as well as significant parts of modern Asia, Europe, Russia, and even Africa. Even more impressive is the relational location of his rule: Timur controlled the middle of the EurAsian continent. All trade between East and West must have gone through Timur controlled territory at some point. And anyone who has ever played the board game Risk can tell you that this region is vital to the health and mobility of a large and powerful army. Even today, this is a controversial region where struggles for power and control are fierce.
A more detailed map of Timur's specific campaigns only further emphasizes his strength and military activity. As power-hungry as Tamburlaine is, Timur was more so. While the literary figure is certainly insatiable for control and expands his grip throughout the play, this is still a fictional, abstract world, and so the real context of Timur's conquest is even more impressive: while we marvel over the idealized Tamburlaine's expansionism, the truth is that he is at best merely equal to Timur, but most certainly a watered-down version. Yet this is not because Marlowe wanted to dumb down Tamburlaine's character - in fact, Marlowe probably thought he was exaggerating his portrayal of Timur - but likely an underestimation of just how influential and imperialisically-affluent Timur really was. As this detailed map shows, most of Timur's campaigns stayed within the boundaries of today's Middle East. England wouldn't have had much direct contact with Timur's army, and any stories they would have heard would have been exaggerated in one direction or another, as stories are want to do. How, though, does one exaggerate a story that in reality appears to be a gross exaggeration already? Perhaps it was for the best that England didn't realize just how immense the Ottoman Empire as a whole was, as this might have trigged panic at either the lowest or highest societal levels.

Bibliography (in order of appearance)

Hookham, Hilda. "Regions subjugated by Timur." Map. Tamburlaine The Conqueror. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1962. xiv.

Hookham, Hilda. "Timur's main campaigns." Map. Tamburlaine The Conqueror. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1962. viii-ix.

Primary Text: Anglo-Tamburlaine

Perhaps one of the more interesting ways in which Early Modern authors dealt with Tamburlaine (and thus the Islamic threat he represents) is a distinct Anglicization. The above image is a woodcut found between parts in a collection of both halves of Marlowe's play. The facial features are prominently European: a high forehead; a thin, long nose; waving hair and a bushy beard that, if this were in color, would certainly be a shade of blonde or light brown. And the armor is not that of an Eastern warlord, but also English: polished sheets of metal without adornment, no festoons or pompy bells on the shoulders, as one might expect in the depiction of an Ottoman Emperor, but rather a high metal collar around the neck that reminds one of the ruffled shirt-necks popular of the period.

Here we have something even more odd in its depiction of Tamburlaine. The details of the artwork at the front of this history meld English and Ottoman well. Tamburlaine's features are again distinctly European, if only less groomed, with longer hair and a more pronounced beard. The armor is more betraying, though. The shield and the helmet appear typically European, as does the general shape of the armor. Around his shoulders Tamburlaine wears a mail chain, but as one looks lower down, the details of the armor become more elaborate, more ornate, more foreign. By the time one's eyes reach the bushy frill on the bottom of his skirt, Tamburlaine begins to look more and more the Ottoman warlord, with puffy bells hanging down and elongated lines decorating his legs. This convolusion of styles mirrors a textual depiction of Tamburlaine that, in content is accurate, but in context constructs not an overreaching Ottoman leader, but a noble Christian knight defending England from an outside threat.

In this history, the logic where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend prevails." Tamburlaine is portrayed as having "piety, prudence, magnanimity, mercy, liberality, humility, justice, temperance, and valour," despite his "heathenish" nature. These adjectives certainly do not describe Marlowe's Tamburlaine, nor do they describe the Early Modern view of Timur and the Ottoman Empire. Yet Tamburlaine isn't constructed here as a Turkish ruler, but as the enemy of Turk, of Ottoman, warring against China, Egypt, and Persia. Far different from the construction of Tamburlaine as Antichrist, the author here constructs Tamburlaine equally complex into the role of European savior against Eastern threats.

This portrayal serves to strengthen the idea of Tamburlaine as Antichrist even more, though: at the outset of Marlowe's Tamburlaine, the title hero is opposed to the Turk Bajazeth, and so there is the appearance of Bajazeth as Islamic Antichrist and Tamburlaine as eloquent English savior. In fact, Tamburlaine is even able to seduce Zenocrate, the princess described over and over as "white." In conquering Bajazeth, though, Tamburlaine instead consumes his role. As the Antichrist, the king of lies, Tamburlaine is willing both to turn against his "countryman" and to effectively lie while playing the part of English savior, only to turn around and reveal himself as Turkish Antichrist once he has gained sufficient power.

Bibliography (in order of appearance)

"Tamburlaine,the great." Woodcut. Author unknown. From:
Marlowe, Christopher. Tamburlaine the Great. London: Printed by Richard Ihones: at the signe of the Rose and Crowne neere Holborne Bridge, 1590. Early English Books Online. Appalachian State University. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&res_id=xri:eebo&res_dat=xri:pqil:res_ver=0.2&rft_id=xri:eebo:citation:99857253

Clarke, Samuel. The life of Tamerlane the Great. London: printed by J.H. for Simon Miller, at the Star and Bible at the west end of St. Pauls Church, 1664. Early English Books Online. Appalachian State University. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&res_id=xri:eebo&res_dat=xri:pqil:res_ver=0.2&rft_id=xri:eebo:citation:99895418

Primary Text: Tamburlaine as Turkish leader

For centuries, we've marveled at the manpower needed for the old world's wonders of construction. The pyramids of Egypt and Middle/South American Native cultures are the most immediate examples. But even more amazing than the physical engineering behind these superstructures is the social engineering. Tens of thousands of workers - slaves, volunteers, prisoners - labored to construct the ultimate display of a dissemblance of power: a tomb for an individual. Some of the largest man made structures even today serve a function for one dead person.

The first illustration depicts the intricacies hand formed in Tamburlaine's own mausoleum. Such labor intensive design could only have come about either as a result of a massive compulsory working force, in a fashion similar to the construction of the Egyptian pyramids, or else by the motivation that saw the construction of Native American pyramids: the workers viewed their leader (in this case Tamburlaine) as a deity. Ironic, then, that Early Modern England would view the same man as an anti deity.
Workers exhibit such compulsory labor as described above in the depictions of the construction of the mosque in Samarqand, the same location as Tamburlaine's mausoleum. The scene immediately above here depicts what Tamburlaine's work for must have looked like. The laborers all have different color faces, and many are white and are wearing beards, resembling the Anglicized Tamburlaine renderings. These were quite possibly English Christian slaves, perhaps those Tamburlaine inherited during his conquest of Bajazeth. Notice the two men in the middle, second row from the top. They are looking back over at the slave master, who is raising a spear, with looks of worry. This is not a friendly, or even voluntary, environment; indeed, Tamburlaine and the Ottomans conscripted slaves for their workforce.

Perhaps most interesting and painful is the method by which those in this painting are working. There is no evidence of elaborate scaffolding. There are no rollers by which large blocks are moved. Yes, there are beasts of burden working as well, but the two men at the bottom pass along blocks with buckled backs, obviously bearing the stress of this job. And, given the intricacies and detail highlighted in the upper-most photograph of the cupola, this wasn't a quick and easy job. Each of those tiles was hand laid, but the attention to detail is uncanny as every tile is aligned and symmetrical. Yet these tiles were also cut by hand, and while they likely employed highly advanced methods of masonry, the entire project would have still been exponentially more difficult then than it would have been with modern technology; nevertheless the mausoleum was built sparing no excessive frivolity at the hands of Tamburlaine's slaves. Such qualifies both the ego and the influence of the man.
There was also a mosque constructed alongside the mausoleum. Christian slaves being forced to build a cathedral to the Islamic God would have been adding insult in injury (and perhaps the greatest insult lies in their construction of a cathedral to the Islamic Antichrist: Tamburlaine's burial grounds). This photograph is included to give a sense of scale; the buildings in the distance dwarf the man sitting in the foreground. These aren't small temples as they might appear unquantified, but massive buildings rivaling the greatest castles and churches of England - literally and figuratively.

But further, this mosque is an undeniable link between Tamburlaine and Islam. Theories of Tamburlaine as a Christian (based on his out of place compassion fo Bajazeth's Christian slaves) must be rejected, and likewise Tamburlaine can't be viewed as the savior of England from Turkish aggression, as one might conclude from Tamburlaine's conquest of Bajazeth. This is just another illustration of the inversion of power, of Tamburlaine's tipping point, of his revelation of deception. The Antichrist came as a false Christ, posing as the savior of England, but as soon as he finds himself powerful enough to shed this false identity, he does.
Tamburlaine as the fully realized Islamic leader is portrayed in this final painting. Everything about it embodies the idea of Eastern "other," of the exotic Turk. The most accessible feature of this are the colors, rich but earthy, combinations unlike any in England. Tamburlaine's burnt organe jumper is adorned with golden designs, set against a dark blue shaw dressed similarly, but with a brass crown and celeste shoes. While we might find these combinations odd, clashing, everyone in the scence is dressed in similar fashion. This is not the style of Early Modern England, but a full depiction of other. Tamburlaine is in no way linked to England here in this depiction of his dealing with Bayazid, the historical figure opon whom Bajazeth is based. Subtle details like the cherry blossom trees in the background, a distinctive Chinese detail, the ornate designs on the carpet underfoot, and the Arabic script along the top and bottom solidify this picture as a cumulative representation of the amalgamation the term Turk endears to Early Modern England.

Indeed, the characters in this scene are of all variety of skin tones and possessing of different facial features. But pay careful attention to Bajazeth, wearing yellow, in the middle-bottom. Like the slaves in the upper paintings, he has highly Anglicized features, starkly constrasted against everyone else who is most definitely Eastern. As I highlighted in my paper, Tamburlaine's conquering of Bajazeth is an essential action in his establishment as Antichrist. It is the rubicon he passes over as roles are inverted and false identities are shed for true. Prior to this point, Bajazeth is constructed as the Islamic Antichrist and Tamburlaine as the savior to Christian England, and his capture of Bajazeth is a victory. But as power changes hands, so do their roles. Tamburlaine is now revealed as the true Antichrist, and the broken Bajazeth is now representative of England.

In this lies the duality of the nature of English-Turkish relationships. The two empires must remain civil in order that they might trade and grow economically. This is the respect England has for Islam. Yet there is always the fear of militaristic threat Islamic poses and the ever-present danger of an end to the civil relationship in exhange for that of war. Fitting then that this is a mentality that we have yet to change, as even today the Western world has the same double-sided dealings with the empire of Islam.

Bibliography (in order of appearance)

Society for Cultural Relations. Gur-Emir Mausoleum, Samarqand. U.S.S.R. Tamburlaine The Conqueror. By Hilda Hookham. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1962. 225.

Bihzad. Construction of the Cathedral Mosque in Samarqand. 1467. From a manuscript of the Zafar-nama of Sharaf al-din Yazdi, B. Quaritch. Tamburlaine The Conqueror. By Hilda Hookham. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1962. 192.

Society for Cultural Relations. Ruins of Timur's great Cathedral Mosque in Samarqand built after the Indian campaign (Bibi-khanum Mosque). U.S.S.R. Tamburlaine The Conqueror. By Hilda Hookham. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1962. 193.

Ottoman Sultan Bayazid brought captive before Timur after the Battled of Angora. 1552. From a manuscript of the Zafar-nama of Sharaf al-din Yazdi, British Museum, London. Tamburlaine The Conqueror. By Hilda Hookham. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1962. Frontispiece.

Primary Text: Tamburlaine at war

There is no controversy over at least one issue: Tamburlaine was a brutal, intense warlord. The first painting here displays this in its depiction of a grotesque tower of skulls. It is the end of the Battle of Herat, and defeated bodies lie strewn across the field, each missing its head. Tamburlaine has constructed these heads - full, fresh heads, not sterilized skulls, with skin and hair, dripping blood, reeking of death - partly as a tribute to his ruthless military prowess, partly as a warning against challenging him in battle, and perhaps even partly as a celebration of death, of the undoing of life, at the hands of Tamburlaine, the Antichrist. The banners and the trumpeter near the tower give an aire of pomp and celebration, and the soldiers in the scene don't look like the shells of men after war to which we have become accustomed to see, but more like soldiers standing at parade rest, waiting to view their leader. Such is Tamburlaine, allegory of ruthless Islamic military.
This second painting is somewhat bizarre. It seems to depict a battle that never happened; in fact, it has no caption nor an attribute at the bottom. On the right side, the east side, there is an army of distinct Ottoman qualities: they ride highly decorated horses, or even camels. Their faces are round, dark, and have thin mustaches or beards. On the left, western side is a much smaller, more non-descript force. They have bland, white faces. They are clearly losing. They are nearly all in retreat, and many are already slain. This is a worst case scenario, the unspoken fear of England. A battle between the thinly-stretched, imperialized military of England against the massive Islamic front would be catastrophic. In fact, the only two English soldiers that dare attack are already overwhelmed. The bottom is surrounded by enemy soldiers, clearly outnumbered, while the top charges against multiple lines of the enemy; he doesn't stand a chance. Neither did the army of England against the army of Islam. This was their greatest fear as a sovereign nation: defeat at the hands of the heathen, or worse, Antichrist armies, as embodied by Tamburlaine.
Thus this attack on a mountain stronghold is representative of the sort of obstacle England would face. The Islamic army was a massive stronghold atop a mountain. There are very few soldiers below in the offense, but above wait scores of reserves. There are even enough soldiers such that the leader (let's assume it's Tamburlaine), sitting atop his horse, has a servant to do nothing but hold an umbrella over his head. Below pace lions, waiting to dine upon fallen bodies - a subtle link perhaps to the days of Christians persecution as the hands of the Romans. Against Christianity finds itself posed against an overwhelming militaristic force, one that it cannot beat in a battle of might. Instead, England can only hope for a sort of spiritual warfare, where they will be aided by the divine intervention of their one true God against the Islamic Antichrist Tamburlaine.

Bibliography (in order of appearance):

The Tower of Skulls raised after the Battle of Herat. 1552. From a manuscript of the Zafar-nama of Sharaf al-din Yazdi, British Museum, London. Tamburlaine The Conqueror. By Hilda Hookham. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1962.64.

Bihzad. Battle scene. 1442. From a manuscript illustrating poems of Nizami, British Museum, London. Tamburlaine The Conqueror. By Hilda Hookham. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1962. 33.

Bihzad. Attack on mountain strongholds. 1467. From a manuscript of the Zafar-nama of Sharaf al-din Yazdi, B. Quaritch. Tamburlaine The Conqueror. By Hilda Hookham. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1962. 224.

Primary Text: "Nevves from the Great Turke"

Reading like a preview to the PayPerView boxing match of the year, "Nevves from the Great Tuke" describes the power of Sultan Brian for whom the pamphlet is named. He is immediately constructed as a "blasphemous manifestation," as "against the Christians" on the cover, but within is immediately doted with praise. He is "Son and Nephew of God, the invincible King of the Turks," and "King of all the Kings in this World, cheife Saint of Paradise." These terms are absolute blasphemes against the Christan God, yet he is again described as "King of all Kings, Prince of all Princes," but then immediately after "Terrour and scourge of all Christians" but interestingly enough, also "of the Ottomans, and of the Circumcised Hope."

Thoughout, this Great Turk is constructed with such seeming contradictions that I can only believe the author is describing the Antichrist. He is at one moment labeled with the same allegorical terms reserved only for God, and the next damned as the enemy of all Christians. While this fits with my reading of Tamburlaine as Antichrist conveniently, the fact that this Sultan is also the enemy of Ottoman is interesting: Tamburlaine was the enemy of the Ottoman Bajazeth, but at the same time also enemy of Christian England.

The pamphlet goes on the describe the size of the Sultan's army, and the size of the Christian armies that band together to oppose him. In concludes this count thusly: "It is much to be wished, that all Christian Princes were reconciled together, and endeavoured to joyne their Forces together, to oppose that cruell enemy that seeks to make himselfe Monarch of the World, and to bring the Christians under his usurping power." There is no deny at this point that the Sultan is none other than an Antichrist figure. Further, this supports my thesis of Tamburlaine as Antichrist in that in shows a description of the Antichrist from the period that could just as easily be applied to the character of Tamburlaine.

The pamphlet ends strangely. After having described the respective armies of the Antichrist Sultan and the cumulative Christian forces, it ends. It is like a preview for a fight after all. Historically, this seems accurate with that I discovered in my paper. While Elizabeth forged official bonds of peace with the Turks, the Church and the people of England were left to balance this by demonizing the Islamic powers. "Nevves from the Great Turke" reinforces the conflicting views of Early Modern England. The Sultan is clearly evil and the enemy of both England and all that is Christian, yet the way the armies are described, both in scope and size, is clearly with great adoration. There is a respect for the power of the military of the Antichrist, despite his religious damnation. And so it was, too, with Tamburlaine and the rest of the Turkish/Islamic Empire.
This pamphlet isn't alone in its demonization of Islam. While the first example seems to be most accurate in capturing the mindset of the Early Modern English in regards to Muslims, this second is the front page from a pamphlet far more typical of the period. It is a sort of treatise designed to prove the superiority of Christianity over other religions, "Mahometans" included. There was quite a bit of this media and it reflected the spoken attitude amongst common people with regards to all other religions, but Islam in particular. While the reverance and respect for the power of the Turks was certainly real, it was rarely expressed, especially given that it was recognized well enough in Elizabeth's approval of trade. Rather, the immediately accesible response of the people was that of condemnation of the blasphemies of Islam. This is an attitude encouraged by the Church but adopted wholly by the citizens of Early Modern England.

Bibliography (in order of appearance)

Anonymous. Nevves from the Great Turke. London: Printed for Jo. Handcock in Popes-head-Alley., 1645. Early English Books Online. Appalachian State University. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&res_id=xri:eebo&res_dat=xri:pqil:res_ver=0.2&rft_id=xri:eebo:citation:99861000

Anonymous. The truth and excellency of Christian religion demonstrated against Jews, Mahometans, and heathens. London: printed for William Crooke, at the Three Bibles on Fleet-Bridge, 1665. Early English Books Online. Appalachian State University. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&res_id=xri:eebo&res_dat=xri:pqil:res_ver=0.2&rft_id=xri:eebo:citation:99833442

Friday, May 1, 2009

Research Paper

Marlowe’s reconciliation of Tamburlaine with the Islamic Empire as the Antichrist

The Early Modern period brought about a thirst for an expansion of culture that can only be described as appropriate of the Renaissance. Included in the wide label of culture is religion as well as a fascination with anything that can be described as “Other.” However, this culture-rich environment is also conducive to misunderstanding and muddling of fact. Such is the case with the Early Modern view on the Islamic Empire, a blanket amalgamation of every religion from the East, serving the same function as “Turk” in reference to race and ethnicity. In reality, the Islamic Empire was perhaps at its height during this period, especially in regard to militaristic power and financial wealth. Such an awesome empire would have certainly inspired fear and reverence that, when mixed with its fully other nature, would have been viewed with an unspoken awe; this is in direct contrast to the popular Early Modern demonization of religious other such as the Jew and the Catholic monsters. To this end, Marlowe creates in Tamburlaine the most feared and most respected enemy imaginable to an Early Modern Christian audience: Tamburlaine as Antichrist. Marlowe’s play serves to reconcile the fear and respect the Islamic Empire demands by embodying such traits in a different religious monster. As such, Tamburlaine, in the first part of his namesake play, serves as an allegory of English and Islamic relationships during the Early Modern period.

In Jonathan Burton’s article “Anglo-Ottoman Relations and the Image of the Turk in Tamburlaine,” he thoroughly explores the complexities that exist for Marlowe’s original audience in regards to Islamic nations and their relations with England. It is important to note, as Burton does, that the term Turk is used interchangeably with Muslim throughout Early Modern England (126), and so any time the work Turk is used, it might refer to someone from Northern Africa, from the Ottoman Empire, or as a general term of “other” that might resemble a Muslim in any way – and this definition is as broad as the English and Islamic Empires combined. Although “a people who no longer exist…” Burton explains, “[t]here was a time […] when the Ottoman Turks constituted the greatest threat to European Christendom” (126).

Although an amalgamation of people – and Burton is careful to point out that the Ottomans were strictly a people and the term is not related to a place – from all over Asia and the modern Middle East, the Ottomans were considered to be entirely Islamic, conquering much of Eurasia under the flag of the crescent moon (Burton 126). From the perspective of the citizen of Early Modern England, Ottomans were a huge militaristic people and a distant, but nonetheless real, threat. Marlowe is criticized for portraying Europe as relatively weak when compared to the Islamic Empire, but Burton “argue[s] that Marlowe’s representation of Turkish strength is representative of actual Turkish strength,” and so the conquering, insatiable Tamburlaine would not be a caricature as one might expect, but rather a true measure of the potential threat England might (but did not directly) face in the enemy of the Islamic Empire (127). This is important to establish because the Turks were not an immediate threat to England: there was no pending invasion, no posturing towards war, no threats nor demands. Rather, Early Modern England was aware of the strength the Turks possessed, and because there was no direct threat, a dual respect formed for this powerful empire. In fact, Burton proposes “Marlowe’s plays […] arise from a culture in which there was a more reciprocal relation between East and West” (125). This Islamic Empire was in many ways analogous to the English Empire at the height of its imperialism, to the end that the Ottomans were peers in England in terms of “expansionist power and controlling influence over East-West trafficking” (127). It is then likely that England would hold equal parts fear and respect for the Islamic Empire, not unlike currently existing sentiments held in the United States.

In fact, England had an entirely two-sided relationship with the Turkish Empire that changes how English-written and English-publish representations of Muslims should be viewed (Bartels, 4). Emily Bartels summarizes this duality best: “For while the demonization of Oriental rulers provided a highly charged impetus for England’s own attempts to dominate the East, their valorization provided a model for admiration and imitation” (5). Burton takes this a step farther, suggesting that England felt a need to “legitimate the arming of the Ottomans” through trade, citing subjectivity in Elizabethan letters that try to both recognize and denounce the Islamic Empire (129-131). As ideas about capitalism arose and political and commercial ambition increased trade and fascination with the exotic East, Elizabeth felt a need to balance this with religious prejudice, especially with the irrational fear of forced conversion, known as ‘turning Turk’ (Burton 138). These Westernized representations of Islam still exist today. Burton makes no attempt to hide his disapproval of these practices, as he ends his summary of Early Modern English demonization of Islam by associating it with “America quietly selling arms to Islamic countries and, at the same time, lustily denounc[ing] Islamic violence” and blaming such attitudes on the “war” against Iraq and current tense relationships between the U.S. and the Islamic Middle East (151).

So, while the government of Early Modern England would recognize the Turkish Empire as a sound trade partner and a tool to expand English imperialism, Christian leaders filled the role of counterbalance. Burton quotes an anonymous liturgical service from the reign of Queen Elizabeth which he says is characteristic of religious language used to describe Muslims: “‘Infidels, who by all tyranny and cruelty labour[sic] utterly to root out not only true religion, but also the very name and memory of Christ, our only Saviour[sic], and all Christianity’” (137). This language mirrors some of the most popular descriptions of the Antichrist found in the Bible: “And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven” (KJV Revelation 13:6) and “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (KJV 1 John 2:22). The denouncement of Muslims as deniers of Christ, and more specifically as those that would come in the place of Christ – “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (KJV Matthew 24:24) – explicitly links the Muslim and the Antichrist.

And then there is Tamburlaine. Based on the historical figure Tamerlane, whom historians all agree was a Muslim (Burton 142), Marlowe’s character Tamburlaine is both culturally and literarily significant as a representation of Turkish conqueror as well as of a conventional Antichrist character. Tamburlaine’s origins are distinctively Christ-like: he is born a Scythian shepherd, but is an eloquent orator and uses this as his primary means to further his ends. And, like Christ, Tamburlaine is successful is his verbal persuasion. However, this is where the intrinsic similarities between Christ and Antichrist end and the deception prophesied in Matthew 24:24 begins. Rather than give up all earthly possessions (Matthew 19:21), Tamburlaine promises “The sweet fruition of an earthly crown” (Tamburlaine 2.7.29). It is this gloried aspiration that many scholars call a “total repudiation of the Christian notion of the universe” (Martin 249). This is classically the most obvious opposition between Christ and Antichrist, and is even attributed to be the reason why Lucifer fell from heaven: Christ is all powerful, but on earth sought to denounce worldly power and possession. Antichrist, on the other hand, cannot seek anything other than worldly excess, and yet he will also never be satisfied. Such is the character of Tamburlaine.

In Act 3, Scene 3, Line 44, Tamburlaine claims to be “the scourge and wrath of God,” confirming him as Antichrist in that he “arise[s]” as a “false Christ,” and so similarly his great conquering and apparent unstoppable reign would be an apt perversion of “great signs and wonders” (KJV Matthew 24:24). Tamburlaine goes so far in his role of Antichrist to claim that not even God can stop him, and that heaven itself will be destroyed before he: “The chiefest God… / Will sooner burn the glorious frame of heaven / Then it should so conspire my overthrow” (Tamburlaine 4.2.8-11). Moore observes an ironic use of language when Tamburlaine alludes to the classical story of Phaethon (who destroyed part of the earth while piloting his father Apollo’s chariot) in line 50 of the aforementioned scene: as Antichrist, or Lucifer – Light-Bearer – “[t]he divine light scorching the earth is a particularly appropriate symbol for Tamburlaine because, as the bearer or an inner divine light, he sees himself as engaged in just such an apocalyptic endeavor” (Moore 135).

In “Marlowe’s Tamburlaine and Elizabethan Religious Radicalism,” Roger Moore explains an allegorical transfer present in Tamburlaine: “In Renaissance works, the Koran frequently substituted for the Christian Scriptures; here Marlowe addresses Christian theology […] but safely transfers the defiant gesture to the distant world of Islam” (126). In this light, such substitution is most appropriate. Tamburlaine’s only act of humanity comes when he frees Christian slaves from Bajazeth; this stands in stark contrast to Tamburlaine’s treatment of his own Islamic captives, whom he treats just as Bajazeth did his own Christian captives (Burton 143). This is central to Tamburlaine’s conflict with Bajazeth. Marlowe constructs Bajazeth as entirely Islamic and then positions Tamburlaine opposite him. And Tamburlaine treats Bajazeth with characteristic ruthlessness, rejecting peace offerings and instead totally conquering Bajazeth and everything for which he represents. Burton explains this as “projections of Christian Europe’s […] anxieties,” (142) when Tamburlaine seeks to “rouse [the Turk] out of Europe” (Tamburlaine 3.3.38), an act serving to both save Christianity from the threat of “turning Turk” and to save imperialist England from the financial and militaristically stronger Ottoman Empire. From a moral perspective, the way Tamburlaine revels in his domination of Bajazeth subverts Tamburlaine’s claim as “scourge of God.” Richard Martin explains that “Tamburlaine enjoys his domination of Bajazeth in a way no Christian ought to, and his enjoyment stands as defiance against the very order of retributive justice whose instrument he claims to be” (255). Tamburlaine’s lust for violence is one of the most obvious dividing forces from the Christian God, and thus one of his strongest characteristics as Christian Antichrist.

The irony is not lost, as this sets up Tamburlaine as the protector of Christian England, expelling the Turkish Antichrist Bajazeth. Indeed, Burton suggests that Marlowe’s audience likely would have sided with Tamburlaine at the end of the Part One, and yet Marlowe goes to great length to humanize Bajazeth’s last words, to contrast his wife Zabina’s desperate pleas with Tamburlaine’s inhumane execution of Bajazeth, and to subvert Zenocrate against Tamburlaine by praying for his pardon (144). And Zenocrate’s prayer, offered up to “might Jove and holy Mahomet” (Tamburlaine 5.2.299), as well as Tamburlaine’s uncharacteristic non-reply when his victory is attributed to “God and Mahomet” (Tamburlaine 5.2.415) subtly connect Tamburlaine back not to the Christian God, but to Mahomet, the God of Islam (Burton 145). As the Antichrist, the king of lies, a Muslim Tamburlaine even conquers his compatriot Muslim sovereign Bajazeth, and with no remorse, completely refuting any link to savior of Christian England.

And, even more subversively, Moore’s suggestion that Marlowe’s use of Islam Antichrist as allegory for Christian Antichrist is another layer of deception as Tamburlaine and Bajazeth represent not Turkish rulers, but Christian. This deception isn’t allegorical, but as Burton suggests, “Tamburlaine’s brutality and Islamism emerge together as if congenially linked” (145). This reading adds yet another layer of deception that convolutes the truth all the more, where Marlowe constructs the suggestion of an allegory where Muslim Antichrist plays the part of Christian Antichrist. Instead, Tamburlaine is the Christian Antichrist, realized as Turkish conqueror, and the allegory lies in Tamburlaine as representation of the Islamic Empire as a whole. And as Burton concludes, “[w]hat emerges from his construction of the Tamburlaine legend is less an articulation of an individual author’s feelings concerning Islam than a perspective on early modern England’s need to produce a rhetoric that could justify its controversial dealings with the Turks” (129). Subsequently revered for his prowess and ambition and demonized as Antichrist, Tamburlaine represents the very real prospect for exponential English imperialism that lie with the Islamic Empire just as much as he represents the overwhelming threat it might pose in a hostile situation. Marlowe portrays Early Modern England’s struggle with this great opportunity, tempering with religious fear. Current complications with these same issues may suggest they be irreconcilable; relations between the (predominantly perceived) Christian West and the Islamic Middle East are just as fragile and treacherous, if not more so, and just as lucrative, if not less so, than in the Early Modern period. And so it is appropriate how Marlowe concludes Tamburlaine, Part One: uneasily at the height of action, the end yet to be determined.

Bibliography

Bartels, Emily. “The Double Vision of the East: Imperialist Self-Construction in Marlowe’s Tamburlaine, Part One.” Renaissance Drama in an Age of Colonization. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press, 1992.

Burton, Jonathan. “Anglo-Ottoman Relations and the Image of the Turk in Tamburlaine.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies. 30:1 (2000): 125-156.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers, 2001.

Martin, Richard. “Marlowe’s Tamburlaine and the Language of Romance.” PMLA. 93:2 (1978): 248-264.

Moore, Roger. “The Spirit and the Letter: Marlowe’s Tamburlaine and Elizabethan Religious Radicalism.” Studies in Philology. 99:2 (2002): 123-151.