[p. 146]

Jeff Dailey

Christian Underscoring in Tamburlaine the Great, Part II

Who could possibly maintain that instances of religious sentiment could be drawn from the profane and impious mind of a Tamerlane?

This is the question asked in one of the sources Christopher Marlowe used as the basis for Tamburlaine the Great, Part II – Petrus Perodinus' Magni Tamerlanis Scytharum Imperatoris Vita.(1) The same question could be asked of the play itself. Is there a religious message, however subtle, behind all the carnage that occurs onstage and off during the play's five acts? The play seems to contain little associated with spirituality, and what empathy contained in it is overshadowed by an excess of barbarism; the audience witnesses the destruction of armies and cities, the ravishing of Turkish concubines, suicide, filicide, and regicide. Tamburlaine himself not only kills his own son onstage, but also mutilates himself for the edification of his children and the entertainment of the audience.

Tamburlaine, Part II was first performed before November of 1587, and can be dated due to a reference in a letter by one Philip Gawdy to his father.(2) The following year, Robert Greene wrote an attack on Marlowe in the preface to his play Perimedes the Blacksmith, where he speaks about another playwright "daring God out of heaven with that Atheist Tamburlan."(3) This is one of many references to Marlowe's godlessness, comments that would continue well after his death.

None of us will know in this life whether or not Marlowe was an atheist, or even what his critics meant by that; as Charles Nicholl points out, atheism, in Elizabethan terms, "covered [p. 147] all forms of religious dissent that were not specifically Catholic or Puritan."(4) However, that Tamburlaine, Part II presents any non-Christian principles (apart from all the killing)(5) is very debatable.

Marlowe's dramas, and those of his contemporaries, form part of a theatrical continuum whose immediate predecessors were morality plays. While there are significant differences between the Tamburlaine plays and the allegorical content of plays such as Everyman, Mankind, and The Castle of Perseverance, it is a form that Marlowe was familiar with – his Doctor Faustus is a later work that more closely follows the older format(6) – and there are several moral/religious messages to be found amidst all the carnage of Part II. This becomes especially apparent when the plays are staged. Even in his earliest works, Marlowe demonstrates his mastery of theatrical timing. F. P. Wilson states that

When we read plays which we have no opportunity of seeing...we too often forget that he dramatist's lines were written to be spoken.(7)

And since, as the same author writes, "how many of us can boast that we are more than readers of Tamburlaine?"(8) it is easy to see how critics whose only acquaintance with Marlowe's text is in print can misunderstand his intentions.(9) This becomes apparent especially in the attack of distemper Tamburlaine feels after burning the Koran at the end of act five. As shown below, the amount time that elapses between the burning and the illness' onset, which may not be apparent to readers, is critical to interpreting this scene. Another issue to be considered is the fact that, on those rare occasions when the two Tamburlaine plays are staged, they are almost [p. 148] always severely edited into one evening's performance, with the greater number of cuts occurring in the episodes of Part II. Hence, even most of those critics who have seen a production of Tamburlaine have not experienced the script in its entirety.(10)

There are two specific places in Tamburlaine the Great, Part II where religion is the main topic. The first occurs in the subplot that is interwoven in the play's first two acts. Here, three Turkish sovereigns (Orcanes, Gazellus, and Uribassa) agree to an alliance with Sigismund, the King of Hungary, and his two generals (Frederick and Baldwin), in order to jointly combat the encroaching Tamburlaine. The Hungarians do this in spite of the fact that Orcanes previously besieged Vienna while Sigismund was Count of Palatine, and that respite only came from an ignominious surrender and payment of ransom. After signing a treaty and confirming it with prayers, respectively, to Christ and Mohammed,(11) the Hungarians decide to take advantage of the Turks' weakness (as they have sent their armies to counter Tamburlaine), and attack. Before doing so, Sigismund questions whether it is moral to do so, inasmuch as they have sworn a pact, but Baldwin assures him that Christians are not bound by promises with infidels.(12) When Orcanes hears about the Hungarians' treachery, he prays to Christ to revenge this perfidy. The battle takes place offstage, but, the triumphant Turks enter and announce that, in spite of their reduced numbers, they have defeated the Hungarians.

Why does Marlowe include this story in his play? It has nothing to do with the historical Timur-the-Lame, given that he was long dead by the battle of Varna, which took place in 1444.(13) [p. 149] Marlowe took the events of the later battle and shifted them to Timur's lifetime (1336-1405), replacing one Hungarian monarch with another.

Additionally, Marlowe leaves out the villain of the story – Pope Eugene, even though he figures prominently in the sources as the instigator of the Hungarian's treachery.(14) Had he included mention of the perfidious pontiff, the story would have illustrated perfectly good Elizabethan anti-papal propaganda. Without Pope Eugene, however, on first appearance it seems that Marlowe has included an anti-Christian element in the play, for the Hungarians openly swear to Christ that they will adhere to their oath, and the playwright portrays them in a most unfavorable light.

The theme of the sub-plot is not an anti-Christian message, but rather a moral one. Marlowe departs from the message his sources imparted to warn all Christians that breaking a solemn oath is abjured by God. Here, God rules against those who have sworn falsely, even though life-long believers, in favor of the Turks, who quickly convert and call on Christ when they realize they have been betrayed.(15)

There is also a more covert theological message in this speech. By calling on Christ to help, Orcanes acknowledges Jesus' divinity, and, by extension, the Trinity. This is important for two reasons. In the future, Marlowe would be accused of Arianism. When Thomas Kyd was arrested, among the incriminating papers found was an "Arian treatise," which Kyd stated was Marlowe's. This treatise is actually a portion of a book countering non-Trinitarian ideas, specifically the confession of John Assheton, a priest arrested in 1549 for espousing non-Trinitarian views.(16) John Procteur, the author of The Fal of the late Arrian, published in the same year, took Assheton's list of beliefs and refuted them. [p. 150]

That copies of Assheton's beliefs were circulated in manuscript is apparent from Procteur's introduction, where he writes that

dyvers copies came into dyvers mens handes: And one was sent to me, from a frende of myne: Who required me to peruse the same, and to let him understand what I thought of it.(17)

Since Assheton had already confessed and recanted his heresy, perhaps he toned down the more egregious aspects of his anti-Trinitarianism, as what he lists as his (former) beliefs are not too far removed from orthodoxy, although even slight variance from Trinitarianism could get one executed at the time. He does state that "the nature devine is single, communicable to no creature," so that Jesus, being made "a creature," could not be divine. Also, that, since Jesus was a man, He was therefore

subject to the passions of man: as hunger, thyrst, weryness, and feare ... And to beleve forsothe that this nature subject to these infirmities and pasions is God or any parte of the devine essen: what it is wother but to make God mighty and of power of those parte, weake and impotent of the other parte, whiche thynge to thynke, it were madnesse, & folly.

The manuscript found in Kyd's possession may have been a copy of Assheton's confession, or someone may have copied it anew out of Procteur's book.(18) John Bakeless points out that the copy is written in an italic hand, which can be more closely tied to Kyd (who was a scrivener by profession) or to Thomas Harriot,(19) rather than Marlowe. Given that Procteur's book and the manuscript copies of Assheton's confession were not uncommon in Elizabethan [p. 151] England,(20) Kyd's (or Marlowe's) possession of it should not, in itself, have attracted the attention of the authorities. Since Kyd was accused of fomenting dissent by means of xenophobic libels,(21) he was anxious, when arrested and tortured, of exonerating himself. The fact that Marlowe merely had to report to the Privy Council on a daily basis shows that the government did not consider him to be in the same category as Kyd, and it is possible that this requirement was put in place to help keep Marlowe's cover as a government agent, perhaps as he was the one who informed on Kyd in the first place.(22) After Marlowe's death, Kyd's elaboration on the former's atheism, merely corroborated his earlier accusation.(23)

Whether or not Marlowe was or became anti-Trinitarian, his inclusion of a divine Jesus in Tamburlaine Part II does not support that accusation. Had Christ not responded to Orcanes' appeal, then the accusations against Marlowe would have been better supported. As the play stands now, this scene clearly reinforces orthodox Christian theology.

The other religious (or anti-religious) moment in the play occurs in the fifth act. In the first scene, after ordering that the Kings of Trebizon and Soria be hanged, the Governor of Babylon shot,(24) and all the remaining inhabitants of the city drowned, Tamburlaine orders Usumcasane, one of his tributary kings:

Tamburlaine

Now Casane, wher's the Turkish Alcaron,
And all the heapes of supersticious bookes,
Found in the Temples of that Mahomet
Whom I have thought a God they shal be burnt.

[p. 152] Usumcasane

Here they are my Lord.

Tamburlaine

Wel said, let there be a fire presently
In vaine I see men worship Mahomet
My sword hath sent millions of Turks to hell
Slew all his Priests, his kinsmen, and his friends,
And yet I live untoucht by Mahomet:
There is a God full of revenging wrath,
From whom the thunder and the lightning breaks,
Whose Scourge I am, and him will I obey.
So Casane, fling them in the fire.
Now Mahomet, if thou have any power,
Come downe thy selfe and worke a myracle,
Thou art not woorthy to be worshipped,
That suffers flames of fire to burne the writ
Wherein the sum of thy religion rests.
Why send'st thou not a furious whyrlwind downe,
To blow thy Alcaron up to thy throne,
Where men report, thou sitt'st by God himselfe,
Or vengeance on the head of Tamburlain,
That shakes his sword against thy majesty,
And spurns the Abstracts of thy foolish lawes.Wel souldiers, Mahomet remaines in hell,
He cannot heare the voice of Tamburlain,
Seeke out another Godhead to adore,
The God that sits in heaven, if any God,
For he is God alone, and none but he.(25)

This is the scene Greene referred to when he accused Marlowe of "daring God out of heaven,"(26) and it forms the cornerstone of his accusation of atheism against Marlowe. Later writers have expanded upon Greene's remarks. A. L. Rowse, for example, proclaims "...the inference is that Mahomet and the Koran, Christ and the Bible were interchangeable,"(27) and other critics have written similar interpretations.

But there is no reason for doing so. Marlowe is not ambiguous here. Although in certain places in this play, and more often in the first part, he, following the tradition in which playwrights did not name God directly, refers to the divine power as "Jove," or sometimes in [p. 153] the plural as "the gods," that is not the case here. Here he diverges from tradition and calls God, "God."

This is actually an intensely Christian moment. Marlowe is exhibiting the powerlessness of Mohammedanism. Unlike many of the countries on the European mainland, the shores of England were far enough away from the Ottoman Empire to be relatively safe from the threat of Turkish invasion. But even given England's distance from Anatolia, there were many opportunities for Marlowe to learn about the Turks and their religion.(28)

As early as 1519, a pamphlet on Islam(29) appeared in London, published by Wynkyn de Worde (who also may have been its author). Although only ten pages long, de Worde does offer some information about the Turks' religion, and focuses mainly on the fact that Muslims do not believe in the divinity of Jesus (and, by extension, the Trinity), although they consider Him a prophet. Writing about Turkish reaction to Christian beliefs about Jesus, de Worde states:

Also whan men [i.e., Christians] speketh of the fater and sone and holy ghost they saye that they are thre persons & not one god but they [Turks] scorne it...

And

And they [Turks] saye that suche a grete pphete wolde not deye such a shamefull dethe. For he dyde arayse the deed and in this fals opynyon they accord with the secte of Manacheen(30) & they saye that the crosse is a token of the devyll and that no man sholde worshpp it. And they byleve not that he is arysen from dethe into lyfe and they forsake.

[p. 154] Even earlier than this, the bishop and philosopher Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), on direction of Pope Pius II, prepared a study of the Koran, Cribratio Alcorani , (Sieving of the Koran), written in 1460/61. Nicholas' analysis of the Koran and its creation showed that it was primarily a compilation of Jewish and Nestorian(31) material (mostly the former).(32) While there are no definitive records that Marlowe had access to Nicholas' collected works, which were published in Basle in 1565, he may have come across them during his student years, perhaps in the library of one his patrons, or even on one of his trips abroad – since Nicholas was papal legate to the Netherlands, copies of his works would more likely have been found there than in England. However, as Nicholas was a Roman Catholic cardinal, his writings were probably not too prevalent in any Protestant country, it is necessary to see if there are other means by which Marlowe could have been introduced to them.

One possibility, and a strong one, is that Marlowe became acquainted with Nicholas' work by Giordano Bruno, who was in England from 1583 to 1585. Bruno, who based his own philosophy on Nicholas', may have come in contact with Marlowe, and discussed religion and heresy with him. Although the evidence connecting Marlowe with Bruno is circumstantial, there is a lot of it. A close examination of the details and circumstances of both men's lives during this period shows there is a good possibility that Marlowe and Bruno knew each other.

First of all, Bruno was associated with Walter Raleigh's School of the Night, as was Marlowe, and they may have become acquainted with each other through the meetings of this secret society that examined magic and science – which, at that time, were almost synonymous. Marlowe had a close connection with Raleigh when first arriving in London after graduation from Cambridge. The courtier's playful "The Nymph's Reply to the Shepherd," written in response to Marlowe's "The Passionate Shepherd to His Love" is one surviving relic of their friendship. Some critics have even tried to show that the character Tamburlaine is based on [p. 155] Raleigh.(33) Given the amicable relationship between the two men, it is possible that Raleigh introduced Marlowe to the Italian philosopher who was favored with a royal audience.