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.