Introduction: Muslims in Tamburlaine and Othello
Muslims in Tamburlaine and Othello are depicted with nuanced complexity, offering insights into the portrayal of Islam in Elizabethan and Jacobean literature. Decrying the holy Prophet (PBUH), Tamburlaine thunders, saying, “Come down thyselfe and work a miracle” (Tamburlaine Part III, Act-I, scene, v), along with various other blasphemous remarks almost unmentionable in this literature review. Showing his true intentions, Marlowe presents a distorted image not only of the founder of Islam but also of Islam itself, vociferously erupting invectives against God, the Holy Prophet (PBUH), and the creed. He is as vociferous and loud as Shakespeare is subtle and shrewd.
Muslims in Shakespeare
Both, however, have presented and represented Islam negatively. In contrast to Marlowe, Shakespeare portrays Othello in “Othello,” who has converted to Christianity, but deep down, he retains his Moorish identity. This becomes apparent when Othello confesses, almost acknowledging his true nature, while committing suicide, saying, “Where a malignant and a turbaned Turk / Beat a Venetian and traduced the state, / I took by th’throat the circumcised dog / And smote him thus” (Othello, Act-V, scene, ii). The ambiguity in Shakespeare’s portrayal raises questions about the purpose behind depicting a Moor dreaming of killing a Turk while taking his own life. Interpretations vary, with some suggesting the Muslims are presented as “monstrous” and the demonization of others prevalent in both works (McJannet et al., 2009, 184-185).
Academic Studies and Muslims in Tamburlaine and Othello
When it comes to academic studies on Tamburlaine, Warner Rice and Chew’s works are frequently referenced in addition to discussions on aesthetic merits and historical accuracy. For instance, Linda McJannet (2009) argues that the portrayal is dispassionate (184), although this seems contrary to Tamburlaine being depicted as a God-sent scourge to the Muslim world, aligning closely with “English stereotypes of the cruel Islamic despot” (45-46). McJannet connects Tamburlaine’s identity with “intra-Islamic conflict and schism,” extending beyond presenting him as a Muslim monster or adhering to other stereotypes. Similarly, Jane Grogan (2012) addresses the ambiguity surrounding Tamburlaine in his article “A warre…commodious”: Dramatizing Islamic Schism in and after Tamburlaine, clarifying that the authorial objective is to demonstrate “religious schism and empire” in the broader world, linking it to the time of sectarian conflicts within Islam (46).
Initiating a polemic about Tamburlaine’s affiliation with either sect, Gordon posits that his desire is to go global rather than focus solely on Persia or the Ottoman Empire (47-48). Gordon adds that Tamburlaine proactively engages with “interlocked issues of religious schism and imperial sovereignty” (48), reflecting the concerns of Elizabethan London at that time (48). Although Gorgon interpolates insights from various topical studies to emphasize that this point requires attention as it is “to the benefit of all Christendom” (51), occasionally commenting on contemporaries and Islamic heritage, and acknowledging the bloodbath in its initial stages (54), he pays less attention to the demonization and monstrosity depicted in Tamburlaine, instead emphasizing the broader global conflict and the inner schisms within the Islamic world.
Turks, Moores, and Muslims in Tamburlaine and Othello
In contrast, Daniel Vitkus (1997) asserts that the presentation and representation of Turks and Moors, specifically as Muslims, in Tamburlaine, stem from England’s two-fold conversion fears, particularly the expanding Ottoman Empire (145). The Protestant proselytizing felt shattered, conflating the political and external enemies as ones determined to turn “Christian to Turk, from virgin to whole, from good to evil, and from gracious virtue to black damnation” (145). The captivity of the English people by the Turks further fueled the writers’ “demonizing representation” of Muslims and Muslim culture (147). However, in the case of Tamburlaine as a non-Muslim character, Irving Riber (1954) perceives Tamburlaine as the “savior of Western Europe from Islam” and hence a “hero to the Christian world” (354), likening him to the heroes of antiquity. Yet, Riber also portrays Tamburlaine with Machiavellian characteristics, comparing him to the image presented by the Italian Renaissance through Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” possessing qualities of ruthlessness that go “beyond good and evil” (355). Although Riber concludes that Tamburlaine’s second part shows the “disillusionment of Marlowe,” he bases it on his premises about Machiavelli (351). Furthermore, Riber avoids commenting on Tamburlaine’s anti-Muslim and anti-Islam rant, despite equating him with the classical hero and savior of the Christians for saving them from the fearful invading Turks.
Turkish and Persian Muslims in Tamburlaine and Othello
The impact of Turkish and Persian influences on the English Renaissance, particularly in Tamburlaine, is explored by Javad Ghatta in his article (2009), aligning with the perspectives of Nabil and McJannet (235). Ghatta posits that Tamburlaine reflects the impacts of the Islamic world by adopting multiple identities simultaneously, specifically embodying “a distinct Persian Islamic identity” (237). He suggests that the mention of Persepolis in the play is indicative of this Persian influence, portraying Tamburlaine as a “Don Juan of Persia” (237-238). However, Ghatta’s polemic focuses more on Persian and Ottomanian religious schisms and less on the presentation of Muslims and Islam in the play (239). He concludes that Persian characters were abundant in London during the staging of such plays (245), suggesting that Tamburlaine aligns more with Persian influences than with Christendom (255). Therefore, it appears that Ghatta pays more attention to the Persian influence than to Marlowe’s depiction of Muslims and Islamic characters.
Depiction of Islam and Muslims in Tamburlaine and Othello
Regarding the depiction of Islam and Muslims, Joel Elliot Slotkin (2014) notes that the presentation of Orcanes, a Muslim king, and Tamburlaine, the hero, reveals their differing views on religion, with the Muslim king being respectful and Tamburlaine disdainful (413). Slotkin attributes Marlowe’s confirmed atheism (408) to two prevalent anti-religious trends of the time (411). While acknowledging Tamburlaine’s conflictual religious identity, the focus on his “Muslim origin” (413) and the manifestation of Turkish features like “pride and cruelty” (415) suggests Marlowe’s inclination. Tamburlaine’s vituperation against the founder of Islam (PBUH) and Islam (415) is seen by Slotkin as an attempt to discredit the power of Muhammad (415), although he does not directly attribute this to the author. Slotkin suggests that while the holistic portrayal of Islam may not be sympathetic, the overall representation of Muslims is not uniformly negative (416), partly due to the character Orcanes.
Commenting on the conversation between two characters, Bajazeth and his wife (417), Slotkin argues that their inability to show a “coherent theological position” rather than a loss of faith (418) aligns with his argument regarding Elizabethan audiences. He emphasizes the Turkish bloodletting through Orcanes (419), suggesting an authorial objective of indirectly demonizing Muslims and Islam. Although Slotkin briefly highlights Islamic tolerance among kings of that time and their broader views on theological perspectives (422-423), he returns to Tamburlaine’s iconoclasm to underscore the dichotomy of religious beliefs and the author’s attempt to shift attention from Christianity to Islam and its adherents.
Religious Order and Muslims in Tamburlaine and Othello
Conversely, Leila Watkins (2012) challenges Slotkin’s argument, suggesting that Tamburlaine’s defiance toward the religious order reflects the author’s intention to portray him as defying all codes of “Christianity, Islam, and paganism” (164-165). Watkins’ argument appears to deflect the authorial position from the depiction of the monstrosity of Islam and Muslims, attributing Marlowe’s ambivalence toward all religious orders (164). She focuses on this aspect of the play to highlight the prevailing attitude in London at that time, driven by a quest for likely imperial expeditions (165). Watkins alleges that critics’ attention to different perspectives in Tamburlaine is symptomatic of the play’s larger attitude toward religion, contesting that no religious creed could provide justice to human beings (165).
Watkins also points to Zabina’s religious attitude (175), Tamburlaine’s vituperative anti-religious oratory (175), and blasphemy committed by several characters. She argues that Tamburlaine targets “religion in general” and not Islam specifically (175), echoing Slotkin’s argument. When balancing these anti-religious views in the play regarding Christianity and Islam (175-176), Watkins suggests that the authorial purpose is to portray religion in a negative light rather than demonizing Islam and its adherents. Her leanings toward this interpretation emerge from her categorical statement that “it is the Christians rather than the Muslims who break the peace treaty in Tamburlaine” (179), indicating an ambivalence that exonerates Marlowe, similar to Tamburlaine. Watkins concludes her argument by stating that Tamburlaine, the play, demonstrates “early modern doubts about religion” in the depiction of Orcanes and Tamburlaine, avoiding direct allegations against Marlowe for demonizing Islam or its adherents through such character depictions (183).
Critics about Muslims in Tamburlaine and Othello
Interestingly, some other Western critics also lean toward the view that Marlowe’s tendency is toward a “titillating, blasphemous edge” due to existing theological paradoxes in the post-Reformation era, as argued by Daniel Vitkus (2003). He comments on the controversies generated by Tamburlaine regarding Islam and Turks, stating that Christendom was pitted against the multireligious Mediterranean world, where Marlowe’s “Christian antagonist” exhibits a proclivity for portraying divine figures in a negative light, playing with Islamic ideals, figures, and people through characters like Zabina, Orcanes, and Tamburlaine. While Vitkus attributes the presentation of Tamburlaine as a notional persona to Marlowe, he seems to vindicate him for demonizing Muslims and Islam, portraying Marlowe pitting the divine against the human agency of Tamburlaine.
Vitkus’s argument is grounded in the medieval European-Christian anti-Islamic attitude, claiming that Marlowe’s characters throw vituperation against Islam, God, and Islamic personas, aligning this attitude with the general tendency in the early modern period to show antagonism toward Islam due to fear of humiliation and defeat from the Turks. Although Vitkus delves into Tamburlaine’s anti-Islamic rant, giving it psychological nuances through semantic jugglery, he hesitates to explicitly declare that Marlowe is engaged in presenting Muslims as monsters and Islam as demonic. However, in the later part of his essay, he asserts that Marlowe’s Tamburlaine draws upon the anti-Islamic discourse developed over centuries in Christian Europe, specifically the traditional misrepresentation of Islam as a religion that deifies and worships Muhammad himself.
Vitkus indirectly contradicts his own premises, suggesting that Marlowe’s sources for depicting anti-Islamic characters are based on the existing “anti-Islamic discourse” and traditional misrepresentation, attributing it to Marlowe’s upbringing in the anti-Islamic atmosphere of Europe. He concludes that Marlowe’s primary purpose in staging this play is to cater to his audience’s desire to see Islam receding and facing humiliation, highlighting scenes like Koran burning and the sacking of Babylon. Finally, he evokes classical Christian romances to underscore the anti-Islamic stance that continued with the Reformation period, Crusades, and anti-Islamic Protestant discourse as the main reasons for Marlowe’s vituperation and blasphemous remarks against Islam. Vitkus hints at Tamburlaine’s defeat as the “self-construction” of English imperialism and acknowledges the association of Tamburlaine with Christ, the messiah, through the deployment of biblical language in the play. Despite not explicitly admitting it, Vitkus’s argument suggests that the defeat of Tamburlaine serves the imperial momentum and aligns with the efforts of various Christian writers of the time to paint Turks in a negative light to maintain imperial dominance. In the end, he places his critique in a Marxist context, describing it as a natural inclination of “primitive accumulation,” while implicitly presenting the othering of Islam and Muslims by Tamburlaine in the strongest possible terms.
Works Cited: Muslims in Tamburlaine and Othello
- Elliot Slotkin, Joel. “‘Seeke out Another Godhead’: Religious Epistemology and Representations of Islam in <em>Tamburlaine</Em>.” Modern Philology, vol. 111, no. 3, The University of Chicago Press, 2014, pp. 408–36, https://doi.org/10.1086/673713.
- Ghatta, Javad. “‘By Mortus Ali and Our Persian Gods’: Multiple Persian Identities in ‘Tamburlaine’ and ‘The Travels of the Three English Brothers.’” Early Theatre, vol. 12, no. 2, [Early Theatre: A Journal Associated with the Records of Early English Drama, Becker Associates], 2009, pp. 235–49, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43500647.
- Grogan, Jane. “‘A Warre . . . Commodious’: Dramatizing Islamic Schism in and after Tamburlaine.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language, vol. 54, no. 1, University of Texas Press, 2012, pp. 45–78, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41349149.
- Marlowe, Christopher. Tamburlaine. Manchester University Press, 1999.
- McJannet, Linda, et al. “Early Modern English Drama and the Islamic World: Islam and English Drama: A Critical History.” Early Theatre, vol. 12, no. 2, July 2009, pp. 183+. Gale Literature Resource Center, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A228909294/LitRC?u=anon~d2395fa8&sid=googleScholar&xid=722b8fc0. Accessed 9 Oct. 2021.
- Ribner, Irving. “Marlowe and Machiavelli.” Comparative Literature, vol. 6, no. 4, [Duke University Press, University of Oregon], 1954, pp. 348–56, https://doi.org/10.2307/1768203.
- Vitkus, Daniel. “Marlowe’s Mahomet: Islam, Turks, and Religious Controversy in Tamburlaine, Parts I and II.” Turning Turk: English Theater and the Multicultural Mediterranean, 1570–1630. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2003. 45-75.
- Watkins, Leila. “Justice ‘Is’ a Mirage: Failures of Religious Order in Marlowe’s ‘Tamburlaine’ Plays.” Comparative Drama, vol. 46, no. 2, Comparative Drama, 2012, pp. 163–85, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23237103.
Relevant Questions about Muslims in Tamburlaine and Othello
- How do the portrayals of Muslims in Tamburlaine and Othello reflect the cultural and historical context of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, and what stereotypes or nuanced perspectives emerge in the characterization?
- In what ways do the Muslim characters in Tamburlaine and Othello challenge or conform to the prevalent stereotypes of their time, and how do these representations contribute to the broader understanding of Islam in early modern English literature?
- How do the interactions between Muslim characters and the Christian societies in Tamburlaine and Othello shape the narrative dynamics and contribute to the exploration of religious and cultural tensions in the plays?
