Chapter Four
Machiavelli’s Ideas as Reflected in Marlowe’s
Selected Plays
Christopher Marlowe was the second writer to mention Machiavelli and the first to
introduce him onto the stage in The Jew of Malta. Though Machiavelli wrote The Prince
as a guide to lead the Italian princes to unite Italy, his ideas came to symbolize immoral
aspirations for power. Machiavellian characters became characteristic of Marlowe’s
plays. Machiavelli’s ideas were of undeniable influence on Marlowe. They were so
deeply interwoven with Marlow’s plays and that is why Machiavelli’s impact might be
guided rather than random. The aim of this chapter is to throw light on Machiavelli’s
principles employed by Marlowe’s characters, and particularly the heroes, in
Tamburlaine the Great, Dr. Faustus, and The Jew of Malta. Marlowe’s dramatic
treatment of those ideas will be elaborated by analyzing the relevant characters of the
mentioned plays focusing on the extent to which each of these characters succeeded to be
Machiavellian. These characters will be compared to the character of the ideal Prince
according to Machiavelli.
4.1. Christopher Marlowe and his Contribution to English Drama
Christopher Marlowe, a great poet and daring dramatist, was the innovator of the
mighty line of English Blank Verse. His plays were full of evil, sins, crimes, bloodshed,
quarrels, wars, slaughters, and tragical events that distinguished by Machiavellian
cunning. He was the first English tragedian who possessed
in abundance the artistic qualities of a great writer which go to the very
making of the elements of great classical dramas and great tragedies which
he would have ably and successfully produced had he not been killed in the
prime of his youth…Marlowe a contemporary of Shakespeare could be
another Shakespeare rather the first Shakespeare had he lived longer.1
90
Marlowe was christened in Canterbury on 26 February 1564 in the Church of St
George Martyr which was destroyed later during the second world war. The exact date on
which Marlowe was born was unknown, but the babies were always baptized after no
more than two or three days of their birthdays and that is what indicates that he was born
in the second half of February. Christopher Marlowe was the second child and the first
son of John Marlowe, a cobbler, who had come to Canterbury from the small Kent town
of Ospringe, and Katherine Arthur who had come from Dover. They had got marriage on
22 May 1561.2
Marlowe’s education started when he was around the age of seven years, he began to
memorize his ABC and Catechism. “This ubiquitous little book was meant to induct
impressionable children into the Church of England...” Almost all the sons of tradesman
departed the school at their eight years age. Marlowe, however, went on to grammar
school where he started to learn Latin. During the winter of 1579, no more than forty two
days before his fifteen birthday, he gained a scholarship to the King’s School in
Canterbury.3
At the age if sixteen, in 1580, he was accepted for another scholarship founded by
Matthew Parker, “Archbishop of Canterbury”, to enter the Corpus Christi College,
Cambridge, in which he started to read the Bible, Philosophy, the Reformation theology,
and history. He obtained his B.A. degree in 1584 and the M.A. in 1587. It was expected
that he would be a candidate of holy orders and to enter the clergy, but he was diverted
from orthodoxy as a result of “some point in his theological studies...” He preferred to be
a dramatist considering the stage as a good forum to express his opinions.4
During this period, Marlowe’s life and career were affected by two important
developments. The first was that Marlowe left Cambridge for a long time for carrying out
some secret missions for the government that took him to Rheim, the stronghold of
Catholicism. No one knew what kind of missions they were, but there was an expectation
that he was a government spy and his task was to provide the wanted information about
the activities of English Catholics who were living in exile. Cambridge university
authorities believed that Marlowe had been converted to the old religion and that is why
91
his M.A. degree was in danger of being denied. The Queen’s Privy Council interposed on
his behalf and that is what saved his degree.5 The second was that Marlowe became a
public figure in London. He went to London where he “had less than six years to live.”
During these years, he made considerable friends such as Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir
Thomas Walsingham so that he was counted among the gentry. Marlowe was Thomas
Nash’s friend, but he incurred Robert Green’s and Thomas Kyd’s hostility though he was
Kyd’s roommate.6 Kyd described Marlowe as “intemperate and of a cruel heart.”7
Marlowe was always involved in vehement problems with the government. In
September of 1589, he was implicated in a quarrel in Hog Lane, near Finsbury Fields.
During the course of this quarrel a man was killed, William Bradley, by Marlowe’s
friend, the poet Thomas Watson whowas acting in self-defence.8 Marlowe was accused
with this crime, he was arrested and sent to Newgate Prison. He was released after a short
duration, no more than two weeks. In 1992, an injunction was issued against him as a
result of a street quarrel which caused death of a man. Marlowe was exiled out of
Netherlands for falsifying of gold coins.9
On 30 May 1593, Marlowe was murdered when he was twenty-nine. According to
the most dependable version, built on the documented evidence in the Public Record
Office, he had been killed by Ingram Frizer, his college. Marlowe and Frizer, in addition
to their friends Robert Poley and Nicolas Skeres had gone together to an inn for drinking
and dining. During a brawl which occurred among them because of payment of the bill,
Marlowe attacked Frizer from behind and that is what mad Frizer defend himself by
murdering Marlowe.10 On the same day Marlowe’s dead body was buried in an unknown
tomb in St Nichola’s churchyard.11
Thomas Beard gives description of the circumstances surrounding Marlowe’s murder
saying that:
in London streets as he purposed to stab one whome hee ought a grudge
vnto with his dagger, the other party perceiuing so auoide the stroke, that
withall catching hold of his wrest, he stabbed his owne dagger into his
owne head, in such sort, that notwithstanding all the means of surgerie that
could be wrought, hee shortly after died thereof.12
92
According to Martin Stephen, guesses had been made that Marlowe was murdered on
the government orders for fearing that he would attempt to bribe his way out of trouble
by leaking the information that he knew about espionage tasks.13
Actually, what made Marlowe very important were not the details of his life, but his
works. Throughout his brief career, Marlowe was able to found himself as a shiny
dramatic poet to the point that he might be described as a key literary figure who was the
pioneer of making distinct contributions that causedthe birth of the Elizabethan theatre’s
glorious tradition. Like many dramatic poets of the late 16th century and early 17th
century, Shakespeare tracked the way which was successfully blazed by Marlowe before
and especially Marlowe’s unique use of the poetic technique called blank verse, or the
“Mighty Marlowe line.”14
Marlowe was a rebel and pioneer at the same time. He revolted against the
convention of composing plays in rhyme, he was able to recognize the high significance
of the blank verse for drama. Marlowe used it in such a way that astonished his
contemporaries. In fact, the first to introduce the blank verse into England was Surrey and
the first to use it in tragedy was Thomas Sackville, but their blank verse “was wooden
and monotonous.” Marlowe, on the other hand, had the ability to seize up the blank verse
to be the typical medium for drama. He used his outstanding poetic artistry to make “it
respond to every note in the scale of human passion, and gave it such naturalness, such
ethereal beauty and suppleness,” and that is why it became the best meter for English
poetic drama.15
It was true that Marlowe did not invent English blank verse, but he was the first to
use really great blank verse, and the first that could possibly be called the “mighty line.”
Through the different plays he wrote, Marlowe’s verse presented a curious blend of
sameness and development. He started his career with the same density of feeling and
keenness of expression with which he ended, but with each successive play, Marlowe
used to learn more and more about how to adjust his line to be suitable to the task which
it expressed. Henry Hallam commented on Marlowe’s achievement in this field saying:
93
If Marlowe did not re-establish blank verse, which is difficult to
prove, he gave it at least a variety of cadence, and an easy adaption of
the rhythm to the sense, by which it instantly became in his hands the
finest instrument that the tragic poet has ever employed for his
purpose…No-one could think of disputing the superiority of Marlowe
to all contemporaries of this early school of English drama.16
George Smith had observed that “what is fundamental and new in Marlowe and was
indeed his true aid to his dramatic successors is his poetic quality.”17 Marlowe was really
the greatest dramatist of pre-Shakespearean drama who had left behind several powerful
tragedies. The events of each of Marlowe’s tragic plays were almost designed to revolve
around the personality of the main character whose task was to lust for power. The hero
always eclipsed the role of the other characters because of his towering personality. All
other characters were solely inanimate figure created for the sake of offering the suitable
environment for the hero’s eloquence, so that the structure of the play would be without
significance apart from the entity of its hero.
Marlowe made undeniable improvements in the field of tragedy. He modified the
concept of the tragedy of the Middle Ages which was related to princes. Marlowe’s
tragedies became a matter of individual heroes. In his typical tragedy, he depicted the
tragic hero as a giant figure with consuming passion who reached beyond the ordinary
aspiration till he would be in direct confrontation with his fate. Unlike the old concept of
tragedy, according to which the downfall of the tragic hero should be controlled by the
fate, the interest in Marlowe’s tragedy lay not in the downfall towards the tragic end, but
in the conflict occurring between the insatiable ambition of the proud soul and the
limitation that this soul wanted to triumph over.18
Using his tragedies, Marlowe provided considerable heroic subjects that were able to
appeal to the imagination of his audience. The tragic heroes of Marlowe’s plays were
with no doubt representatives of the Renaissance spirit that coloured the ideas and the
feelings of the men of this period. In spite of that they were not men of virtue and
morality, but they were actually heroic in their dimensions. They were the embodiment of
unbridled authority and super human activity. “They live for worldly power and are
94
inspired by audacious ambition. They have aspiring souls and are fired by magnificent
possibilities of glorious achievement.”19
In short, his plays offered their audiences the most palatable plates of the popular
stage, “with strong sensations and spectacular scenes.”20 Comparing him to Kyd, Rupert
Brooke believed that Kyd’s was “a flaming torch carried into a dark theater, and
Marlowe’s to the opening of a thousand doors and the flooding of everything with
sunlight.”21 Swinburne described Marlowe as “the father of English tragedy and the
creator of English blank verse was therefore also the teacher and the guide of
Shakespeare.” T.S. Eliot did not agree with Swinburne saying that there were two
misleading assumptions in addition to two misleading conclusions in this statement. Eliot
explained that Kyd has a good title to the second, and “Shakespeare was not taught or
guided by one of his predecessors or contemporaries alone.” It was true that Marlowe
was of great impact over later drama by introducing many new tones into English blank
verse, but it was a fact also that when Shakespeare used to borrow from Marlowe, at the
beginning, “Shakespeare either made something inferior or something different.”22
Marlowe’s dramatic skill in portraying Machiavelli’s dogmas presented in The
Prince would be the subject of discussion in the following sections. As a method to assert
Machiavelli’s influence within Marlowe’s plays, a comparison will be made between the
conduct of Marlowe’s hero’s in the events of the selected plays to Machiavelli’s policy
and that is what will prove the nature and degree of this impact.
4.2. Machiavelli and Marlowe’s Tamburlaine the Great
4.2.1. Tamburlaine the Great: a Brief Introduction
Tamburlaine The Great, hence-forward Tamburlaine, which presented an outstanding
achievements of a man who trusted his power, was the most solid and flawless of
Christopher Marlowe’s drama: “more consistent in quality than Dido or Faustus, more
whole and substantial than The Jew of Malta, and more vigorous in imagination and
sustaining power than Edward II”.23 It was a play of two parts that represented Marlowe’s
95
first big hit. Part One, on the one hand, dealt with ceaseless rise of the hero, the Scythian
Shepherd, out of poverty and equivocation upto the world of gaining power and satiating
appetites. Part Two, on the other hand, presented the hero, Tamburlaine, as a mass
murderer who had no scruples.
The play was probably written in 1587 or 1588. The early editions of this play
included nothing that indicated that it was written by Christopher Marlowe. But the style
used in composing it was clearly akin to that of Marlowe’s other works to the point that
so many of its passages could be seen as echoes and anticipation of the other passages in
Marlowe’s oeuvre and the personality of its hero represented a perfect manifestation of
Marlowe’s major preoccupations and that is what embodied a conclusive proof that the
author was Christopher Marlowe. The exact date of performance was unknown, but
Henslowe’s diary registered several productions in 1594-5.24 It was the only play that was
published during Marlowe’s life time in 1590 by Richard Jones.25
Marlowe’s main resource of Tamburlaine was Thomas Fortescue’s The Forest, a
translated copy into English of Pedro Mexia’s Silva de Varia Lection. He used other
resources such as George Whetstone’s The English Mirror and Petrus Perondinu’s
Magni Tamerlanis Scythiarum Imperatoris Vita.26 The Play was based on the legendry
life of Timur Leng or Timur the Lame, the historical figure who was born in Samarkand,
an Asian city in 1336. His invasions made him the first to be mentioned among the most
frightening and prosperous warlord throughout history.27
Thomas McAlindon believed that Tamburlaine marked the real beginning of
Renaissance tragedy for the reasons that its hero’s “untimely death is casually related to
the strife of opposites”, and that “his noble end spiritually renews the marriage of
contraries on which his greatness was built.”28
Tamburlaine stood as a milestone of the Elizabethan public drama for the reasons
that it beckoned a shift from the “clumsy language” of the earlier Tudor drama into fresh
and radiant language. Along with Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy, it was regarded the first
popular prosperity of the public stage in London.29 The two parts were of essential
96
importance in ridding English drama from its academic and popular conventions, they
included one of the most courageous experiments in the world of literature.30
The prologue of Part One was used by the author to declare himself as a prominent
creator in style and subject matter. Addressing his competition, Marlowe started to spill
scorn on the formal defects of their works. He criticized their mechanical rhythm, jigging,
and their primary rhyme scheme. The prologue stood for a statement by which Marlowe
asked his audience to keep attention promising them something new in language in
addition to ideology.31 W. L. Godshalk pointed out that the prologue suggested the idea
that Tamburlaine presented an amazing “combination of words and actions.”32 Charles
Whitney stated that it “promises a new reach of poetry, a new martial and tragic
seriousness, a new challenge to order and degree …”33 The audience would be able to
watch the shift “from jyggingvaines of riming mother wits, And such conceits as
clownage keepes in pay”34 into the new world “where you shall heare the Scythian
Tamburlaine, Threatning the world with high astounding tearms.” (Tamburlaine, Part
One, pro, 4-5)
The prologue of Part Two started with an appreciation of the success of the
preceding part:
The general welcomes Tamburlaine receiv’d,
When he arrived last upon our stage,
Hath made our Poet pen his second part,
(Tamburlaine, Part Two, Pro, 1-3)
These lines clearly indicated that Marlowe had no intention to write this part before the
great prosperity of Part One.
The prologue drew the path of Tamberlaine, “Where death cuts off the progres of his
pomp, And murderous Fates throwes al his triumphs down.” (Tamburlaine, Part Two,
Pro, 4-5). As he was in the end of Part One, the hero was a man of great fortune, who was
in his prime prosperity, but his downfall would be exacted by the shape of the tragedy as
a genre and the identity of the tragic hero as a scourge of God, “one who will be used and
then himself destroyed.” Also, this prologue reflected the importance of Zenocrate,
97
Tamburlaine’s wife. Her death represented a turning point in the events of the play.
“Death, whom Tamburlaine has chosen to see as his servant in Part 1, robs him of his
beloved wife,” and hence-forth the audience began to observe the weakness of
Tamburlaine.35
The play was one of the most representative plays of the Renaissance humanism
which sought to make man be aware of his potential energies. Tamburlaine refused the
idea of his own limitations on earth, he decided to wreck all enclosures and boundaries
that might hinder his effort to achieve whatever he wanted. The Scythian Shepherd who
was aiming just to keep himself away from slavery, “And must maintain my life exempt
from servitude”,(Tamburlaine, Part. One, I. ii, 31) became a tyrant of unlimited
ambition and that is why one has to agree with Harry Levin who states that Tamburlaine
was a play “laid down the outline of a new dramatic genre, the tragedy of ambition- an
ascending line propelled by the momentum of a single character, whose human
relationships are incidental to his ulterior goal...’’36 Scott Trudell states that this play
dealt with “ambition, domination, and power…Tamburlaine places his life on the scale of
the gods, whom he frequently challenges and to whom he often compares himself.”37
It seems that the play was of little association with spirituality, its empathy was
veiled by the immoderate barbarity. The play presented a series of armies and cities
destruction, the usurping of Turks concubines, suicide, and regicide. The hero himself not
only murdered Calyphas, his son, “but also mutilates himself for the edification of his
children and the entertainment of the audience.”38
Tamburlaine as a historical work suggested an explanation of events different from
what Marlowe presented in his later endeavour in this form, Edward II. He selected from
his resources the clarification of Tamburlaine as the scourge of God and shed much more
light on his part as a man who was able to control fortune. The scourge was employed to
harm the culpable as well as inculpable and the oppressor’s final rout would not be as a
result of sin or proof of divine punishment.
98
4.2.2. Tamburlaine as an Ideal Machiavellian Prince
Tamburlaine, as a play of ambition and power, was based on the desire of its hero to
gain and maintain power throughout the east and the west. The events of the play clearly
indicated that cruelty and savagery were the customary traits from the opening scenes till
the end. It could be seen as a representation of Machiavelli’s principles. Irving Ribner
confirmed that this play presented an “important political doctrine, and doctrine very
close to Machiavelli’s actual thought.”39 It was a celebration of an ideal Machiavellian
prince. Tamburlaine was described by the King of Persia, Mycetes “like a Foxe in midst
of harvest time, Dooth pray uppon my flockes of passengers” (Tamburlaine, Part One,
1. i, 31-32)
At the beginning scene, Marlowe presented Mycetes as a weak king who confessed
saying “I am not wise enough to be a kinge.” (Tamburlaine, Part One, 1.i, 20) He was
unable to unite Persia which was in a lost cause with two dangers. On the one hand, the
“Turkes and Tartars Shake their swords at thee, Meaning to mangle all thy provinces.”
(Tamburlaine, Part One, 1.i,16-17) On the other hand, Mycete’s brother, Cosroe, had his
own ambition to take the crown. He was planning to oust the king to achieve his dream.
Tamburlain: The plot is laid by persean Noble men,
And Captaines of the Medean garrisons,
To crown me Emperour of Asia.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, 1.i, 110-112)
Cosroe, whose aspiration for power combined with the real intention to take the
throne was masked by the excuse of restoring Persian’s missing standing, was appointed
as a King by some of Persian Lords.
Ortygius:
Magnificent and mightie Prince Corsoe,
We in the name of other Pearson states,
And commons of this mightie Monarchie,
Present thee with th’Emperial Diadem.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, I .i, 136-139)
Depending on Machiavelli’s main rule, the end justifies the means, Cosroe appeared as a
Machiavellian Prince, he did not wave to battery Mycetes who was feeble to the point
99
that he could not be aware of his brother’s conspiracy. Cosroe assented the offer of being
the King saying:
Cosroe :
Wel, since I see the state of Persea droope,
And languish in my brothers government:
I willingly receive th’emperiall crowne,
And vow to weare it for my countries good:
In spite of them shall malice my estate.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, 1.i, 155-159)
The incidents of the play revealed that the new King was in the grip of another
Machiavellian character, Tamburlaine, who was able to sway Cosroe’s mind.
In Act One Scene Two, Tamburlaine, who had captured the Egyptian princess
Zenocrate and her company, was introduced as a man of great ability of persuading. He
was “more than merely the personification of the Marlovian ego strutting onto the stage.”
His prosperity as a warrior supported by his genius that enabled him to sway the mind of
others helped Tamburlaine to found himself as a leader of great qualities. He was fluent
and skillful in dealing with Theridamas, the leader of an army that was sent by Mycetes
to destroy Tamburlaine who was successful in employing his words along with his proud
appearance to triumph over Theridama’s intention of fighting.40
Tamburlaine: Forsake the king and do but joine with me
And we will triumph over all the world.
I hold the Fates bound fast in yron chaines,
And sooner shall the sun fall from his Speare,
Than Tamburlaine be slaine or overcome.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, 1.ii, 172-177)
Theridamas was quickly won by Tamburlaine’s eloquence.He said.
Theridamas: Won with thy words, and conquered with thy looks,
I yeeld my selfe, my men and horse to thee:
To be partaker of thy good or ill,
As long as life maintaines .
(Tamburlaine , Part One, I. ii, 228-232)
100
Again Tamburlaine appeared as a fluent man, he used his skillfulness to win over
Cosroe who responded saying:
Cosroe:
Now worthy Tamburlaine, have I reposed,
In thy approoved Fortunes all my hope,
What thinkst thou man, shal come of out attemptes?
For even as from assured oracle,
I take thy doome for satisfaction.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, II. ii, 1-5)
Tamburlaine’s eloquence was an undeniable factor that helped him to acomplise his first
stage of greatness as a warlord. Godshalk was equitable when he states that the opening
of Tamburlaine’s series of triumph in battlefield came as a result of “his eloquence.”41
Tamburlaine succeeded to win Cosroe to be his ally for the aim of employing him in
the battle against his brother, Mycetes, who declared “I will have Cosroe by the head,
And killed proud Tamburlaine with point of sword.”(Tamburlaine, Part One, II. ii, 1112) But he was no more than a fool who hid the crown thinking that it was a good idea to
do so. “Here will I hide it in this simple hole.” (Tamburlaine, Part One, II. iv, 15)
Tamburlaine, who found Mycetes trying to conceal his crown, told the King that he was
not planning to steal the crown, but to capture it during the battle. He said.
Tamburlaine: Here take it for a while, I lend it thee,
Till I may see thee hem’d with armed men.
Then shalt thou see me pull it from thy head:
Thou art no match for mightie Tamburlaine.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, II. iv, 37-40)
Finally Tamburlaine and Cosroe defeated Mycete’s army. Tamburlaine seized
Mycete’s crown and granted it to his contemporary ally, Cosroe, who would be his next
aim to be attacked. He said, “Holde thee Cosroe, weare two imperial Crownes.”
(Tamburlaine, Part One, II. v, 1)
Cosroe, who used to nickname Tamburlaine as “my Regent of Persea, And General
Lieftenant of my Armies,” (Tamburlaine, Part One, II. v,8-9) informed all the neighbour
101
kings that he had
become Persian’s king describing himself as the “one that can
commaund what longs thereto.” (Tamburlaine, Part One, II. v, 23)
Cosroe’s fatal mistake laid in the fact that he acted far from Machiavelli’s ideas for
the reason that he used the mercenaries represented by Tamburlaine’s soldiers.
Machiavelli warned the princes telling them not to depend on mercenaries because “they
will always aspire to their own greatness.”(The Prince, P. 43) Looking for his own
greatness, Tamburlaine decided to depose Cosroe. He challenged Cosroe to a battle in
which the latter was killed saying “And with my blood my life slides through my wound,
My soule begins to take her flight to hell” (Tamburlaine, Part One, II. vii, 43-44)
Tamburlaine acted according to Machiavelli’s principles that to whoever was on the
way to be a prince, “it is indeed necessary to be …generous.” (ThePrince, P. 56) He
appreciated the efforts of his loyal men who had undertaken “even to death will follow
Tamburlaine.” (Tamburlaine, Part One, I. ii, 59) Tamburlaine promised them “their
crowns are yours,” and that his hand “shal set them on your conquering heads.”
(Tamburlaine, Part One, III. iii, 30-31).This promise was the catalyst that was of
essential role to gather the best of their determination before repairing to the battlefield
because they were enthusiastic to gain the final reward, the royal crown. So they were
fighting to get benefit of the chance offered by Tamburlaine in order to achieve their own
aim, and not only to make Tamburlaine the Emperor all over Asia.
As a true Machiavellian Prince, Tamburlaine was always interested in war. He stated,
“By this my sword that conquered Persea, Thy fall shall make me famous through the
world.” (Tamburlaine, Part One, III. iii, 84-85) It seems that he adopted nothing “as his
art but war…” (The Prince, P. 50) He aimed to conquer every part of the earth and that is
what made him the threat so that the other kings had to put in their considerations.
Tamburlaine’s next confrontation would be with the most fearful adversary who was the
embodiment of the real defiance that Tamburlaine had to triumph over. He was the
Turkish Emperor, Bajazeth, who expressed his pride while he was debating
Tamburlaine’s case with his subsidiary kings saying that “Our Armie is invincible,”
(Tamburlaine, Part One, III. i, 7) and that “all the trees are blasted with our breathes.”
102
(Tamburlaine, Part One, III. i, 55) Bajazeth, described Tamburlaine and his men as “the
Tartars and the Easterne theeves.” (Tamburlaine, Part One, III. i, 2) He warned
Tamburlaine saying:
Bajazeth:
Not once to set his foot in Affrica,
Or spread his coulours in Grecia,
Least he incurre the furie of my wrath.
Till him, I am content to take a truce,
Because I heare he beares a valiant mind.
But if presuming on his silly power,
He be so mad to manage Armes with me.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, III, i, 28-34)
Tamburlaine was prouder than Bajazeth, he replied, “Alas (poore Turke) his fortune
is to weake, T’incounter with the strength of Tamburlaine.” (Tamburlaine, Part One, III.
iii, 6-7) Bajazeth was defeated and captured with his wife Zabina by Tamburlaine who
kept them in iron cages and used them as footstool and that is what instigated them to
commit suicide later. Tamburlaine imposed mental and corporal punishment upon his
prisoners, he insulted and tormented them for the sake of creating the fear he needed to
frighten his enemies. He did not accept the offer of giving ransom saying, “Not all the
world shall ransom Bajazeth.”(Tamburlaine, Part One, III. iii, 232) Tamburlaine put in
his consideration “that there are two modes of fighting: one in accordance with the laws,
the other with force. The first is proper to man, the second to beasts. But because the first,
in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second…’’
(The Prince, P. 60)
The following adversary that Tamburlaine determined to attack was Zenocrate’s
father, the Suldan of Egypt who asked for the help of Zenocrate’s fiancé before her
captivity, the King of Arbia, to fight with him against Tamburlaine.
Soulan:
See Caplin, the faire Arabian king
That hath bene disappointed by his slave,
Of my faire daughter, and his princely Love:
My have fresh warning to go war with us.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, IV. I, 68-71)
103
Describing Tamburlaine as a “Merciless Villaine”, and that “Pillage and murder are
his usuall trades,” (Tamburlaine, Part One, IV, i, 64-65) the Suldan undertook to carry
his revenge out and not to allow Tamburlaine to enter Egypt.
Souldan:
Yet in revenge of faire Zenocrate,
Whom he detaineth in despight of us,
This arme should send him downe to Erebus,
To shroud his shame in darknes of the night.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, IV. i, 43-46)
Tamburlaine, on the other hand, swore, “Egypt and Arabia must be mine.”
(Tamburlaine, Part One, IV. iv, 91) Unlike the Suldan and his ally, Tamburlaine was
able to keep his word and to win the battle. The King of Arbia was killed, and
Tamburlaine spread the Suldan’s life inaungurating him new states more than before. He
said:
Tamburlaine: Since I shall render all into your hands.
And ad more strength to your dominions
Than ever yet confirme’d th’Egyptian Crown.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, V. i, 447-449)
Tamburlaine was acting according to Machiavelli’s recommendations, he did not spare
the Suldan’s life for the sake of Zenocrate as is reflected in the following speech:
Zenocrate:
Yet would you have some pitie for my sake,
Because it is my countries, and my father.
Tamburlaine: Not for the world Zenocrate, if I have sworn.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, IV. ii, 123-125)
But Tamburlaine saved the suldan’s life as an appreciation of Theridama’s appeal:
Theridamas: We know the victorie is ours my Lord,
But let us save the reverend Souldans life,
For faire Zenocrate, that so laments his state.
Tamburlaine: That will we chiefly see unto, Theridamas,
(Tamburlaine, Part One, V. i, 203-206)
There is no doubt that Theridamas was one of Tamburlaine’s faithful generals and that is
why it was better for Tamburlaine to express a type of flexibility by appreciating his
104
appeal as a method to keep the cordiality with his loyal men and as a result to keep his
power upon them. It is a matter of keeping authority and nothing else.
Machiavelli believed that the Prince should be fearful rather than loved. (The Prince,
P.58) This idea was embodied in the situation that Tamburlaine overheard Agidas trying
to convince Zenocrate that Tamburlaine was none other than a murderer.
Agidas:
How can you fancie one that lookes so fierce,
Onelie disposed to martiall Stratagems?
Who when he shall embrace you in his armes,
Will tell how many thousand men he slew.
And when you looke for amorous discourse,
Will rattle foorth his facts of war and blood,
(Tamburlaine, Part One, III. ii, 40-46)
As a result of his fear, Agidas killed himself with his own hand for the reason that he
wanted to avoid the inevitable torture. Before stabbing himself, Agidas declared:
Agidas:
More honor and lesse paine it may procure,
To dy by this resolved hand of thine,
Than stay the torments he and heaven have sworne.
Then haste Agydas , and prevent the plagues:
Which thy prolonged Fates my draw on thee:
Go wander free from feare of Tyrants rage,
Remooved from the Tormnets and the hell.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, III. i, 97-103)
Tamburlaine was a real savage. He expressed no mercy at all. When he blockaded
Damascus in order to assail it, he murdered all the girls who were sent by the Governor to
ask for mercy and not to destroy their city, “O pitie poore Damascus.” (Tamburlaine,
Part One, V. i, 80)Tamburlaine did not care for their solicitation and kill them all for the
reason that they did not give up to him before and that the time they came was the time of
offensive.
Tamburlaine:
They have refusede the offer of their lives,
And know my customes are as peremptory
As wrathful Planets, death, or destinie.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, V.i, 26-28)
105
Tamburlaine’s method of attack was distinguished by the colours he used during the
blockade of the city he wanted to assail. He used specific colours to explain the steps that
he followed to achieve his aim. On the first day, the white colour indicated his wish to
enter and take over the blockaded city peacefully. The red colour used on the second day
indicated that the peace he proffered in exchange of surrender had been refused. In this
step, the colour of his camp should be changed to red and his army should be ready to
achieve whatever he wanted. In case the city did not agree to give in and continued to
refuse his offer, the red colour of Tamburlaine’s camp should be replaced by black and
henceforth everyone should be killed not excepting women and children. It seems that
Tamburlaine believed that he was not responsible for the death of those who were slain in
the battlefield. His enemy, who refused his offer to save their lives, was responsible for it.
That is why he did not like to be merciful thinking that mercy expressed weakness.42
Tamburlaine was shown as a man who could not be influenced by women. Even his
beloved, Zenocrate, could not exert an impact upon him when she asked him to be
merciful over Damascus saying “…raise your siege from fair Damascus walles.”
(Tamburlaine, Part One, IV .iv, 71)
Among Machiavelli’s ideas stated in The Prince was the idea that the “desire to gain
possessions is truly a very natural and normal thing, and when those men gain
possessions who are able to do so, they will always be praised and not criticized.” (The
Prince, P.14) It is clear that Marlowe put this notion in his consideration when he
presented Tamburlaine as a true Machiavellian prince who was always looking forward
to seize new states. Furthermore, he was Machiavellian in the sense that he used methods
suggested by Machiavelli to control these states. Machiavelli offered three methods that
should be followed to govern the new occupied territories; “the first is to destroy them;
the second is to gothere in person to live; the third is to allow to pay a tribute and creating
an oligarchy therethat will keep the state friendly towards you.’’ (The Prince, P.19)
Throughout the events of the play, Tamburlaine, crushed his opponents to powder in the
battlefield and destroyed the cities completely. Allan A. Zarbock states that in a few
cases, Tamburlaine founded a government that was managed by his trusted men and that
106
is what made him “the undisputed ruler of his conquered domain”, and enabled him to
dominate his large territories using “the delegation authority.” The new kings would be
loyal allies who would not hesitate to support Tamburlaine’s situation against any
threat.43 Tamburlaine enthroned his faithful leaders saying:
Tamburlaine: Wel, here is now to the Souldane of Egypt, the
King of Arabia, and the Governour of Damascus. Now take
these three crownes, and pledge me, my contributorie kings.
I crowne you here (Theridamas) king of Argier: Techelles king
of Fesse, and Usamcasane king of Morocus.
(Tamburlaine, Part One, IV. iv, 113-117)
During the events of this play, Tamburlaine destroyed the belief of the Great Chain
of Being that the King should be nominated by God. According to this belief, he made
illegal replacement for being an Emperor who rose to power in spite of his low status as a
shepherd. He was described by the Suldan of Egypt as a “Pesant ignorant.”
(Tamburlaine, Part One, IV. i, 64) Tamburlaine was not content with making himself an
unlawful King, but he went so far as to used his illegal situation to reward his men by
making them kings of extorted kingdom. Tamburlaine did not believe in the Great Chain
of Being. According to him, his origin was not an “impediment to his fame since only
power determines one’s worth and achievement.”44
Part One peacefully ends with the “rites of marriage” (Tamburlaine, Part One, V. I,
534) of Tamburlaine and Zenocrate in addition to the ceremony of Zenocrate’s
coronation as a Queen, “here we crowne thee Queen of Persea.”(Tamburlaine, Part One,
V. i, 507)
At the beginning of the second part, Tamburlaine was again looking for new
countries to invade, thinking that peace would affect his authority badly and the best way
to keep and enlarge his power was through continuous war. His hatred of peace suggested
the idea that he could not transfer his power into anything else and that the war was the
only craft he became skilled in. Early in this part, his wife asked him about the time when
he would leave his armies in order to live luxurious life and to avoid the danger of war.
She said:
107
Zenocrate:
Sweet Tamburlaine, when wilt thou leave these armes
And save thy sacred person free from scathe:
And dangerous chances of the wrathful war?
(Tamburlaine, Part Two, I. iii, 9-11)
Tamburlaine’s answer was that he would not leave his art and that he would teach his
sons how to follow him and how to keep his Empire after his death:
Tamburlaine:
And I teach thee how to charge thy foe,
And harmeless run among the deadly pikes.
If thou wilt love the warres and follow me,
Thou shalt be made a king and raigne with me,
Keeping in yron cages Emperours.
(Tamburlaine, Part Two, I. iii, 45-49)
In this sense, Tamburlaine was acting according to Machiavelli’s doctrine of being aware
that the main “reason why you lose it is by neglecting this art, while the way to acquire it
is to be well versed in this art.” (The Prince, P.50) The art of war was the only art to keep
power and as a result to keep kingdom.
Part Two, which was usually considered as an inferior sequel of Part One reiterating
its theme with various conclusions, was a representation of the adventures of the same
hero who became more savage. In this part, Tamburlaine was no longer a slave of his
humble origin. He did not like to lead his soldiers into the battle, insteadhe ordered his
men to fight his battle. First, he ordered Theridamas to deal with the govermnet of
Babylon saying “Go bind the villaine, he shall hang in chaines, upon the ruines of this
conquered towne.” (Tamburlaine, Part Two, V. i, 84-85) Secondly, he commanded
Techelles to annihilate all Babylonians after routing their army. He made no exception,
all should be murdered, men, women, and even children.
Tamburlaine: Techelles, Drowne them all, man, woman, and child,
Leave not a Babylonian in the towne.
Techelles:
I will about it straight, come Souliers,
(Tamburlaine, Part Two, V.i, 169-171)
Thirdly, Tamburlaine did not exclude religion out of his violent nature, he ordered
Usumcasane to burn the Holy Koran found in the Mosque.
108
Tamburlaine: …Wher’s the Turkish books,
Found in the Temples of that Mahomet,
Whom I have thought a God? they shal be burnt.
Usumcasane: Here they are my Lord.
Tamburlaine: Wel said, let there be a fire presently.
(Tamburlaine, Part Two, V. i, 172-177)
It was clear that Tamburlaine ranked himself at a new position higher than that of the
Kings he had made using them to achieve whatever he wanted, especially the unpleasant
actions and that is what makes him Machiavellian. He acts according to Machiavelli’s
idea that the prince should authorize others to accomplish “distasteful tasks.” (The
Prince, P.65)
According to Tamburlaine’s doctrine, his sons should follow their father in mastering
the art of war.
Tamburlaine: But now my boies, leave off, and list to me,
That meane to teach you rudiments of war:
Ile have you learne to sleepe upon the ground,
March in your armour thorowe watery Fens,
Sustaine the scortching heat and freezing cold,
Hunger and thirst, right adjuncts of the war.
And after this, to scale a castle wal,
Besiege a fort, to undermine a towne,
And make whole cities caper in the aire.
(Tamburlaine, Part Two, III. ii, 53-61)
Amyras and Celebinus were the sons that their mother expected them to be, “they have
their mothers looks, but when they list, their conquering fathers hart.” (Tamburlaine,
Part Two, I. iii, 35-36) They were fond of their father’s art, but Calyphas was not like
them. He was always lectured for preferring to stay by his mother’s side “While the rest
are out conquering.”45 Calyphas preferred to estrange himself from battle-fied and to
enjoy the life of opulence reaping the reward that his father and brothers got out of their
fighting. He described war as “dangerous to be done.” (Tamburlaine, Part Two, III.ii,
93) That is why Tamburlaine retorted saying; “Villain, art thou the sonne of
Tamburlaine, And fear’st to die, or with a Curtle-axe.” (Tamburlaine, Part Two, III, ii,
94-95)
109
In Act IV, Scene I, Amyras and Celobinus tried to excite Calyphas’ manhood by
describing him as a coward as a method to persuade him to fight, but he was interested in
playing cards with Peridicas in order “to drive away the time.”(Tamburlaine. Part Two,
IV. i, 61) He did not change his mind. He addressed his brothers saying: “Take you the
honor, I will take my ease, My wisedome shall excuse my cowardise.” (Tamburlaine,
Part Two, IV, i, 49-50)
After achieving victory, Tamburlaine, who adhered to his own martial laws, decided
to kill Calyphas ignoring many appeals to save his life.
Theridamas:
Yet pardon him I pray your Majesty
Techelles and Usumacasane: Let of us intreat your highness for once,
And we will force him to the field hereafter.
(Tamburlaine, Part Two, IV. i, 97-102)
It was clear that paternal love exacted no influence upon Tamburlaine in treating his sons.
He stabbed Calyphas describing him as “neither corrage, strength or wit, But follie, sloth,
and damned idlenesse.” (Tamburlaine, Part Two, IV. i, 125-126) When he murdered his
son, Tamburlaine was acting according to Machiavelli’s principle that “when the prince
is with his armies and has a multitude of soldiers under his command, … he should not
worry about being considered cruel, for without that reputation he will never keep an
army united or prepared for any action.” (The Prince, P. 58) Tamburlaine was obliged to
stab his son for the reason that he wanted to teach his men a lesson that the rules of war
should he applied upon all including his sons. The aim was to keep the unity of his armies
and that is why he, as a wise Emperor, had to keep power over all with no exception.
Tamburlaine was not governed by any religion, so that he did not waver to burn the
Holy Koran believing that he was the only power on earth and no one could frighten him.
He dared to address the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) saying:
Tamburlaine: Now Mahomet, if thou have any power,
Come downe thy salfe and worke a mracle,
Thou art not woorhy to be worshipped,
That suffers flames of fire to burne to writ
Wherein the sum of thy religion rests.
(Tamburlaine, Part Two, V. i, 186-190)
110
He is Machiavellian for the reason that he acted immorally and founded his own laws
according to his dogmas far from any religion. Afterwards, Tamburlaine felt deadly ill
saying that “what daring God torments my body thus.” (Tamburlaine, Part Two, V. iii,
142) Meanwhile, a messenger arrived to inform him that Callapine, Bajazeth’s son, who
was Tamburlaine’s prisoner, was able to convince Almeda, his jailer, to free him in return
for a kingdom.
Callapine:
As I am callapine the Emperous
And by the hand of Mahomet I sweare,
Thou shalt be crown’d a king and be my mate.
(Tamburlaine, Part Two, I, ii, 64-66)
Tamburlaine was too weak to the point that he could not pursue Callapine and has
army. He surrogated his son to carry out the task and to attack the unconquered lands
after his death. He said.
Tamburlaine: That Callapine should be my slave againe.
But I perceive my martial strength is spent,
In vaine I strive and raile against those powers,
That meane t’invest me in a higher throane,
As much too high for this disdainful earth.
Give me a Map, then let me see how much
Is left for me to conquer all the world,
That these my boies may finish all my wantes.
(Tamburlaine, Part Two, V. iii, 118-125)
J. Warshaw stated that “Tamburlain’s Will to Power was thoroughly lion-like; it was
splendid; it was contagious: but it was not Machiavellian.”46 This idea was unaccepted.
Quite on the contrary, as it was explained with details before, Tamburlaine was always
tracking Machiavelli’s policy so that he was able to be a successful leader who attacked
vast lands and established his kingdom. The events of the two parts of the play proved
that he did not forget to behave like a fox, especially at the beginning when he dealt with
Cosroe and Theridamas. He was fox-like but not lion-like, he could convince them to
support him and that is what represented the starting point of his huge accomplishments.
Tamburlaine “sheer wit won his first encounter with Theridamas.” 47
111
Actually, Tamburlaine was presented as a real embodiment of Machiavelli’s ideal
prince. He was shown as a man of fortune and virtue who conquered almost the whole
world raising himself from the position of a shepherd to the rank of absolute authority.
He compelled his opponents to be desperate, so that he was able to build up the path to
his glorified conclusion. Ribner states that Marlowe’s Tamburlaine glorified virtue, “just
as Machiavelli had glorified it.” Marlowe, exactly as Machiavelli did, confirmed that the
hero of history was the hero who had the ability to dominate fortune and control her
according to his desire. Finally, at the peak of his meritorious works, this hero is cut off
by fortune. Accordingly, Tamburlaine’s death, after burning the Holy Koran near by the
end of the play, could not be interpreted as a punitive action taken by gods. But, it was a
matter of cutting him off by fortune.48 Willard Thorp stated that his death was not an
exasperation of gods, but it was an inevitable death that came as a result of the mala of
the old ages.49 Ribner’s and Thorp’s ideas were accepted for the reason that Tamburlaine,
from the very beginning, was Machiavellian and was acting in such a way that served his
purpose of keeping and maintaining power far from religious and ethical considerations.
He always opposed God and defied him.
Ribner wonderfully summed up the undeniable influence of Machiavellian policy on
the two parts of Tamburlaine. He said:
Marlowe’s Tamburlaine is a victorious hero… And Tamburlaine is a
hero
not because of any Christian virtues, But because of a
Machiavellian vritu, which enables him to master fortune and win
success in his enterprises. The theme of the play is a glorification of
virtu, and This theme places Tamburlaine outside the Christian
World of divine providence which rewards man for good and
punishes him for evil. As a history it belongs in the A-Christian world
of Machiavelli which considers not what should be but what is, and
which does not study the path to virtue, but rather to success.50
Finally, one has to conclude that the “Scourge of God must die.” (Tamburlaine, Part
Two, V. iii, 248) But he did not lose his power. The two parts were of a series of events
that dramatized him as a martial hero who challenged political and military defiances and
112
got over them all successfully using his rhetorical eloquence, stout resolution in addition
to his forces. Tamburlaine’s Empire was established and flourished during his life time.
He was aware of Machiavelli’s principles with the aim of keeping authority over the
regions. It is true that Tamburlaine, who was interested in invasions and bloodshed, was
cruel, but his cruelty was not for the sake of being cruel. Machiavelli taught him that
cruelty could be used “out of necessity to protect oneself.” (The Prince, P.33)
Tamburlaine used cruelty in order to raise the necessary fear among enemies that he
needed to achieve specific ends, the need to be frightful in order to be able to maintain his
power. His brutal strength created an effective and powerful king. It is important to
mention that he was just in using cruelty, so that he did not hesitate to apply the rules
upon his son and to stab him. Tamburlaine kept his authority by infusing fear in those
around him.
4.3. Machiavelli and Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus
4.3.1. Dr. Faustus: a Brief Introduction
Dr. Faustus was the idealized representation of the Renaissance period which was
thirsty for knowledge and discovered of new fields. This was the direct cause of freedom
of man from religious views which were governing all the sides of life during the Middle
Ages. R. M. Dawkins states that Dr. Faustus was a play that told “the story of a
Renaissance man who had to pay the medieval price for being one.” During the Middle
Ages, the top of wisdom was represented by the learning of the Divine carried out
through God’s Grace, given in revelation. In the Renaissance, by contrast, there was a lot
of disapproval of the contemplative life that had its roots in faith, and plenty of extolment
of active life.51
The play was written in 1588, or probably only in a short duration before Marlowe’s
death in May of 1593. Marlowe might have had a collaborator who assisted him to
compose this play or there was someone who might have completed the play after his
death. Recently, many critics preferred the late date of composition maintaining that
113
Marlowe had a collaborator.52 Sir Walter Grey confirmed that there was no reason to
doubt that it was Marlowe “who planned the whole, and that collaborators carried out his
plan substantially according to his instructions.” P. H. Koche believes that many of the
non-Marlovian scenes were written by Nash.53 The play was first published in 1604,
eleven years after Marlowe’s death and the first performance was done after twelve
years.54
The main source of Dr. Faustus was the legendary achievements of the real life of
the magician Johann Faust which where explained and fictionalized in the German text
the Historia Von D. Johann Fausten,(1587) translated into English language under the
title The History of The Damnable Life and Deserved Death of Doctor John Faustus.
There is no doubt that the play had its roots in the famous German legend as found in the
English Faust-book, as the English translation was named, but Marlowe changed many
of its detailes and that is what was more interesting and appealing. Marlowe was not a
slave of his sources. He gave the old story an interpretation characteristic of his own taste
and personality. The good and bad angels were not mentioned in the Faust-book. As a
relic from the medieval morality plays, they were used “to enhance the tortured
ambiguities of Faustus’s position.”
55
The two angels appeared four times, they were the
embodiment of Faustu’s inner conflict. Marlowe employed them to let the audience be
aware of Faustus’s mind during his negotiation with the devil. Another divergence from
its source was the addition of the Seven Deadly Sins. This annexation was used to shed
light upon Faustus’s sin and the nature of his downfall.56
In Dr. Faustus, the quest for power by learning infinite knowledge imposed
immeasurable cost. Faustus excelled all in studying traditional sciences, and he was
graced with the doctors’ name, “but cannot rest content with what traditional learning
brings him.”57 The arrogance he was afflicted “him to overreach and ruin himself.”58
Marlowe provided a study of the scholar who was unsatisfied while being restricted
within the limits of what human kind was allowed to know and that is what turned him to
search for unlimited knowledge and power which might give it. It seems that Marlowe
was thinking of himself as standing for Faustus. He revolted against the traditional
114
learning of the university, looking for banned knowledge in return for selling his soul to
the Devil.59
The play was primarily a study of the mind of Faustus himself. Marlowe examined
the field of self in terms of an inner conflict. The conflict was not between two men for
the sake of the domination of one man over the other, or in the interaction of a group of
characters. It happened in the unlimited regions of the mind. The battle field was within
the personality of its tragic hero. Faustus’ mind was always swinging between remorse
and damnation, between virtuous Faustus and proud Faustus who was strongly driven by
his aspiration to satiate his appetites of being powerful in order to be able to achieve what
he wanted. This aspiration was supported by the Devil and the bad angel whose speech
always triumphed over that of the good angel.60
The prologue defines the shape of the play and gives a view about Faustus from a
specific moral and religious perspective which would inevitably colour the impression of
the audience. The play was not of war or love, but it was concerning the “form of
Faustus’ fortunes, good or bad.”61 Faustus was a man of humble origin, but he was
“endowed with the natural gift of a brilliant mind.”62 His relatives brought him up and
helped him to acquire great learning and to be a famous doctor in Wittenberg. Faustus
was shown as being “swoll’n with cunning, of a self-conceit.” (Dr. Faustus, Pro, 20) His
story was linked to that of Icarus in order to focus on the pattern of Faustus’s tragedy.
The Greek myth mentions that Daedalus, Icaru’s father, made waxen wings for both of
them with which they flew out of the island of Crete. Icarus tried to fly near by the sun,
its heat melted the wax and destroyed his wings. He fell into the sea and died.63 Both of
them, Faustus and Icarus, were victim of their pride which drove them to think about
such excessive demands that were unreachable and that is what made them losersfinally.
According to many critics, Dr.Faustus is a morality play. In his book, Christopher
Marlowe: the Overreacher, Harry Levin states “Marlowe reverts to morality play with
Dr. Faustus.”64 Jonathen Dollimore explaines that Dr, Faustus could be interpreted as a
morality play that confirmed Faustus’ Fate as a suitable sanction for community crimes
against God, or “as a vindication of Faustus.”65
115
Finally, one has to conclude that Dr. Faustus could be seen as an allegorical play
that symbolizes three cases. First, it stands for a revolution against what could be named
as an unbearable religious limitation that exactes on human will during the Middle Ages.
Secondly, it symbolized the classical battle between evil and good within each human
personality. It is a fact that each personality is a mixture of good and bad qualities. In
case the scale of the balance turns to good qualities, this person becomes virtuous and
vice versa. Thirdly, Faustus himself was used to teach a moral lesson that damnation
would be the final result of anyone who tried or even thought to play with the devil. The
lesson should be taken, everybody should defy the devil and its works.
4.3.2. Machiavellism in Dr. Faustus.
Faustus’s character was an embodiment of Machiavelli’s aspiration for obtaining
power. Beside his craving for infinite knowledge there, was “a lust for …power.”66 As a
kind of Renaissance superman, Faustus was condemned to be a man who demonstrated
outstanding longing for knowledge and power. In the opening scene, Faustus appears in
his study looking over branches of human knowledge he studed. It seems that all the
sciences he learned were too limited and inadequate to satiate his excessive ambition. It is
true that Faustus gained the renown of a doctor, but it left “him but a man and others but
men.”67 Faustus felt that he was restricted within the boundaries of his humanity and that
is why he declined the idea of his own restriction. He reaches the conclusion that with the
exclusion of the power of the black art, “which prove chimerical,”68 he would be “still
but Faustus, and a man.” (Dr.Faustus, I.i, 23). Faustus was looking for the ability “to
plumb the mysteries yet withheld from man, and the superhuman power that such
knowledge will bring.” The acquisition of such power could not be accomplished
excluding a transaction with the devil.69 It became clear that the presumptuous nature of
Faustus’s ambition led him to aspire that he could be something more than a man.
Throughout the play, Faustus agreed to donate his soul to the Devil for the sake of
twenty four years of supernatural power.
116
Faustus: Go, bear these tidings to great Lucifer,
Seeing Faustus hath incurr’d eternal death
By desperate thoughts against Jove’s deity.
Say he surrenders up to him his soul,
So he will spare him four and twenty years,
Letting him live in all voluptuousness,
Having thee ever to attend on me,
To give me whatsoever I shall ask,
To tell me whatsoever I demand,
To slay mine enemies and aid my friends
And always be obedient to my will.
(Dr Faustus, I. iv, 89-99)
In this sense, he is Machiavellian for the reason that he decides to scarify for gaining
knowledge and as a result unlimited power. He said “Had I as many souls as there be
stars, I’d give them all for Mephostopheles.” (Dr. Faustus, I. iv, 104-105). He sacrificed
his soul regardless his reputation and that is what reflectes a typical picture of
correspondence with Machiavelli’s idea that, whenever possible, the Prince had to try to
escape the infamy of acting badly otherwise “he need not worry about incurring the
infamy of those vices without which it would be difficult to save the state.” (The Prince,
P. 54)
Although Niccolo Machiavelli does not give an exact declaration that the main theme
of his pamphlet The Prince was the end justifies the means, almost all the ideas presented
in this treatise revolves around the meaning of the concept. Machiavelli believed that it is
the responsibility of the Prince or the ruler to govern strongly as much as he can and the
means he used would always be accepted for the aim of maintaining his kingdom.70
Machiavelli confirmed that one should “consider the final result. Therefore, let a prince
conquer and maintain the state, and his methods will always be judged honourable and
praised by all. For ordinary people are always taken in by appearances and by the
outcome of an event.’’ (The Prince, P. 62) According to the meaning of this concept,
Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus represents an ideal example of a man who tries to justify the
means which would be employed to achieve his goal by the goal itself. Faustus always
117
tried to justify the means he was planning to use by the aim he was planning to reach. He
was dreaming to be a man of unlimited power, the Emperor all over the world.
Faustus: … I’ll be great emperor of the world,
And make a bridge through the moving air
To pass the ocean with a band of men;
I’ll join the hills that bind the Afric shore,
And make that country continent to Spain,
And both contributory to my crown.
The Emperor shall not live but by my leave.
(Dr. Faustus, I. iv, 106-112)
Since there was no human force by which he could achieve his aim, Faustus tried to
find an excuse to vindicate his intention to leave the traditional knowledge he studied. He
looked for magic as the sole means that enabled him to reach the final goal, being a
powerful man. “With impatient scorn,” he declined the traditional subjects of study.71 On
the one hand, he accounted his rejection to this field of study. He rejected logic saying
“Affords this art no greater miracle? … A greater subject fitteth Faustus’ wit.” (Doctor
Faustus, I. i, 9-11) Faustus turns down physic. He said.
Faustus:
The end of physic is our body’s health.
………………………………………..
Couldst thou make men to live eternally,
Or being dead, rais them to life again,
Then this professional were to be esteem’d.
Physic, farewell,
(Dr. Faustus, I. i, 17-27)
Law, according to him, “flits a mercenary drudge.” (Dr. Faustus, I, i, 34). Divinity, then,
was not better than logic and law, “what will be, shall be. Divinity, adieu.” (Dr. Faustus,
I, i, 47) Faustus turns away from these barren sciences, they would not make him find the
way to the absolute knowledge.These branches of learning did not serve Faustus’
purposes represented by gaining power, his final aim could not be reached by going on
with the learning.
On the other hand, Faustus concentrates on the books of magic shedding much more
light on the facilities they offered. He said.
118
Faustus:
These metaphysics of magicians
The And necromantic books are heavenly;
Lines, circles, signs, letters, and characters:
Ay, these are those that Faustus most desires.
O what a world of profit and delight,
Of power, of honour, of omnipotence,
Is promis’d to the studious artisan!
All things that move between the quiet poles
Shall be at my command. Emperors and kings
Are but obey’d in their several provinces.
(Dr. Faustus, I. i, 48-57)
Actually, Faustus had never admitted the limitation of this human nature. The
protestation of all academic disciplines he studied had been rejected for the reason of
justifying his intention to go beyond them. All the studies were rejected because Faustus
had the convection that they were useless.
Again, when he called his friends, the magicians Valdes and Cornelius who would
teach him magic, Faustus used to warrant the means, the magic, describing the sciences
as follows:
Faustus: Philosophy is odious and obscure,
Both law and physics are for petty wits;
Divinity is basest of the three
Unpleasant, harsh, contemptible and vile.
‘ Tis magic, magic that hath ravish’d me.
(Dr. Faustus, I. i, 105-109)
Another reason why Faustus’ character could be seen as Machiavellian is his keeping
power in his own hand and his readiness to do anything good or evil in order to maintain
power. In the situation when Benvolio does not trust Faustus and mocks him, Faustus
degrads Benvolio fixing horns on his head. He addresses him saying:
Faustus:
Why, how now, sir knight? What, hanged by the horns?
This is most horrible! Fie, fie, pull in your head
for shame, let not all the world wonder at you.
(Dr. Faustus, IV. I, 136-138)
119
The knowledge that Faustus gained made him so proud that he wants to be respected and
honoured by everyone with no exception and that is why he used to insult Benvolio who
tried to carry his revenge out. He cut Faustus’ false head, and Faustus rose again ordering
some devils to punish Benvolio and his men. Faustus’ conceit made him commit reprisals
against all those who did not trust and respect him. Faustus always utilized power on
behalf of himself, either to achieve entertainment and diversion or to impose sanctions on
his enemies.72
Exactly like Machiavelli, Faustus was engaged with power and nothing else. He
never thought of moral and religious considerations. He was concerned with the ends
only. Faustus did not take care of religious customs and decided to mock the canons of
Christianity and subscribe to a contract with the devil.73 Having determined that the pact
with the Devil should be achieved to gratify his ambition for power, Faustus was blind to
what was meant by this pact. He gave up higher values for the sake of lower ones. He
was captured by lusting for power regardless of any other thing even his dignity. Faustus
did not realize that the Devil stole from him his dignity in addition to his soul. Although
the good angel appeared several times attempting to offer the suitable chance to repent,
Faustus did not agree saying “My heart’s so hardend I cannot repent.” (Dr. Faustus, II. ii,
18) The blindness continues as Faustus rejectes the warning given by his blood when it
came to be congealed and the inscription, Home Fuge, appeared on his arm after ratifying
the contract.
Faustus:
But what is this inscription on mine arm?
Homo fuge! Whither should I flie?
If unto God, he’ll throw me down to hell.
My senses are deceiv’d: here’s nothing writ!
O yes, I see it plain. Even here is writ
Homo fuge, Yet shall not Faustus fly.
(Dr. Faustus, II. i, 76-81)
Faustus wanted to convince himself that this inscription deceived his awareness and that
is why he did not heed the meaning it carried. But he was heedful of the meaning of the
following devilish dance prepared by Mephostopheles to delight Faustus’ mind.
120
Actually, Faustus used to delight himself in devilish dance and shows, but he was blind
towards all real appearances thinking that he followed the right path, but he was not.
Even though Faustus presented Machiavellian characteristics after having
supernatural power on earth, he is constantly cheated by Mephostopheles who
representes another Machiavellian character, at least for Faustus. Throughout the play,
Faustus was given several occasions to repent. Yet he is never allowed to realize that he
was in the wrong path because he was confronted with Mephostophilis who was more
Machiavellian than him. When he was called by Faustus at the first time, Mephostophilis
understood that Faustus had a strong wish to gain power and he worked to get Faustus’
soul. By using two methods, Mephostophilis was able to prevent Faustus’ repentance.
On the one hand, he used to cajole Faustus supplying him with what could gladden his
mind. “I’ll fetch him somewhat to delight his mind.’’(Dr. Faustus, II. i, 82) Then he
departed and came back with a group of devils, giving crowns and expensive clothes to
dance in front of Faustus who felt happiness saying:
Faustus:
What means this show? Speak Mephostophilis.
Mephostophilis: Nothing, Faustus, but to delight thy mind,
And let thee see what magic can perform.
Faustus:
But may I raise such spirits when I please?
Mephostophilis: Ay, Faustus, and do greater things than these.
(Dr. Faustus, II. i, 83-87)
On the other hand, Mephostophilis used to threaten Faustus for not obeying his orders in
which he is a Machiavellian character for using fear as a means to confirm that Faustus
repentance would not occur.
Mephostophilis:
Thou traitor, Faustus, I arrest thy soul
For disobedience to m sovereign lord.
Revolt, or I’ll in piecemeal tear thy flesh.
(Dr. Faustus , V. i, 74-76)
Finally one has to conclude saying that Faustus was very proud and as a result he
could not be aware that he was cheated for sacrificing his soul in return for worldly gains.
He could not able to utilize the opportunity given by God, represented by the appearance
121
of the good angel, to leave magic and repent. Faustus is Machiavellian for adopting many
of Machiavelli’s ideas. His ambition makes him think beyond the boundaries that human
being is allowed to reach. He lusts for power and that is why this ambition is the main
cause of Faustus’ downfall towards his tragic end.
4.4. Machiavelli and Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta
4.4.1. The Jew of Malta: a Brief Introduction
Most of the critics suppose that The Jew of Malta was written in 1589 or 1590. The
earliest references to this play were in Henslowe’s Diary, which summed up a total of
thirty-six performances, most of them occurred at the Rose theatre and achieved by
different companies, during the period between February 1592 and June 1596.74 The first
performance of this play was on 26 February 1592, Marlowe could not attend it as he had
been arrested.75
According to M.C. Bradbrook, the play could be divided into two parts. The first part
was, similar to that of Dr. Faustus, concentrates only on the mind of Barabbas whose
actions were comparatively of a fewer significance than that of Dr Faustus. The second
part presentes “an interest in stage situations and the manipulation of the narrative.” It
was distinguished by the use of asides for stage effectiveness as well as close intrigue.76
In this play, the scene between Ferneze and Barabas developed a type of criticism of
the Catholic Church. Marlowe criticized the Church using its other enemy, the Jews who
were dramatically embodied by the charactetr of Barabas. The events of the play offered
the Protestant audience the occasion to watch a confrontation between Barabas, the nonProtestant figure who shared with the Protestants their aversion of Catholicism, and
Ferneze, the Catholic figure who used to practise his arrogance against the Jews in
Malta.77
The Jew of Malta had “for its setting an island of the land-locked Mediterranean”
and its hero, Barabas was desirous to persist in his big house in which the riches of many
lands were collected into jewel room. Faustus and Tamburlaine in Dr. Faustus and
122
Tamburlaine the Great, by contrast, have physical and mental restlessness. The first
invisibly roamed all over Europe and the latter achieved many military tasks over most of
the eastern territories.78
The play exacted a certain influence on the contemporary audience by the end of the
16th century and the beginning of the 17th century. Two lines of this play, for example,
were imitated by Everard Guilpin as appeared in the eighth epigram of his Skialetheia
(1598). It was of undeniable effect on Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice and Ben
Jonson’s Volpone, not to mention the echoes and borrowings in different plays of the
Elizabethan age.79
The Jew of Malta is a tragedy in which the interest entirely depends on the character
of the Jew. As a merchant and a revenger, Barabas was employed to occupy “the centre
of the commercial and representational economies of The Jewof Malta, embodying at the
outset a principle of surplus and unrestricted expenditure.”80 There is no doubt that it was
Barabas’ character which suggested to Shakespeare the idea of characterizing the Jew,
Shylock, in his The Merchant of Venice. Both of them were portrayed to be greedy and
to face the popular immoderate prejudice against Jews which was prevalent in the
Elizabethan age.81
According to the Renaissance mind, the Jews were hateful as they were regarded
them to be the responsible for the “crucification of the Christ.” The Jew of Malta was
linked directly to this idea by making its hero a Jewish merchant and giving him the name
Barabas.82 Barabas took “his name from the murderer whom Pilate released instead of
Christ.”83 He was highly qualified and that is what enabled him to speak for himself. In
fact, he spoke more lines than any of the author’s other characters, “about half of the
play.”84
The plot of this play was spun in such away as to reflect a texture which included
three levels. First, the overplot which was woven by “the interrelationship between the
Christians and Jews, the Spaniards and Turks”. Secondly, the main plot represents the
events that reflected the influence and the consequence of the fatal decision, committed
by the governor, of impounding all of Barabas’ wealth and turning his house into a
123
convent. Thirdly, the underplot depicts Ithamore’s part as a main reason that caused
Barabas’ destruction.85
In The Jew of Malta, the concentration was on plot rather than invasion, or policy
and slyness rather than pluck and bravery. The roaring of the lion which was common in
Tamburlaine the Great was replaced by the wiles of the fox. Edward Meyer mentions
“in Tamburlaine: he is all lion…but the Jew of Malta is just the opposite: he is all fox.”86
M. M. Mahood described The Jew of Malta as “a tragic farce…”87 T.S. Eliot
astutely qualified this play “as a savage farce.” Spivack attributed Barabas’ ridiculous
nature to the stage tradition of the vice, “the way in which Barabas puts himself on show
to the audience, the treachery to friend and foe alike, the theatrical laughing and weeping,
the expert intrigue for its own sake.”88 Wilbur Sander stats “Marlowe wrote neither a
tragedy nor a tragicomedy: he wrote a farce.”89
4.4.2. The Machiavellian Characters in The Jew of Malta
Although in The Jew of Malta “there is not a single line taken directly from
Machiavelli,”90 the play could be seen as a representation of Machiavelli’s ideas in Malta.
Marlowe utilized Barabas, the Jew, and Ferneze, the Christian governor, to achieve his
task of incarnating Machiavellism in the events of the play. He developed the plot to shed
much more light on the religious and, to a specific extent, political defiance.
The starting point of this play was the appearance of Machiavel to speak the
prologue, which was probably the best among all the Marlowe’s openings. Machiavel,
the one who represented the ghost of Machiavelli’s soul which had never departed this
world, “but flowne beyond the Alpes,”91 was employed to introduce the Jew, Barabas to
the audience.
Machiavel:
But whither am I bound, I come not, I,
To reade a lecture here in Britanie,
But to present the Tragedy of a jew,
(The Jew of Malta, Pro., 28-30)
124
He was the parody of Niccolo Machiavelli who had been demonized by the Elizabethan
culture as a result of the ideas reflected in his writings, and especially The Prince. Even
nowadays, the term Machiavellian is used to symbolize any manipulative behaviour. In
one way or another, the prologue added a considerable contribution to Machiavelli’s
construction for “perpetuating the stereotype of the evil manipulator.”92
The prologue provided an evidence of the significance of Machiavelli’s influence on
the Elizabethan stage, particularly Marlowe’s plays, as a character recognized by his
villainy. Meyer states that the important fact for drama was that “Machiavelli had been
brought on the stage as the incarnation of villainy.”93
Some critics such a Munson and Fred Bowers criticize the appearance of
Machiavelli’s ghost in the prologue saying that the use of this ghost was not needed. This
trick was used because the convention was new and popular among Marlowe’s audience
and as a result Machiavelli’s ghost, according to them, had little or no purpose. Allan A.
Zarbock does not agree with this idea. He maintained that Machiavelli’s ghost appeared
to introduce his policies and that is what was an element served to unify the play and to
found the sinister mood and to create the negative vitality of the play. Marlowe, for this
reason, promoted Machiavelli’s ghost to a fundamental player, but not “an afterthought
on Marlowe’s part.”94
The ghost was of great importance, its speech and tone reflected a devilish
amusement which represented a prelude to a show of exceptional cunning produced as a
result of the love of evil for the sake of evil itself.95
Marlowe introduced several situations based on Machiavelli’s principles. His main
characters were provided by the occasions that enabled them to act far from morality and
religion in order to reach the implementation of villainy in the play. Among
Machiavelli’s important teachings was that the Prince had “to learn how not to be good”
(The Prince, P. 53) for keeping power. The Governor of Malta, Ferneze, acted according
to this idea when he felt that his power over Malta was threatened by the Turks. They
asked him about “The ten years tribute that remaines unpaid.” (The Jew of Malta, I. ii, 7)
Ferneze asked for a month as an appointment time to be able to collect the tribute, the
125
Turks agreed saying that “We grant a month, but see you keep your promise.” (The Jew
of Malta, I. ii, 28) Ferneze was “not worry about the infamy of being considered cruel…”
(The Prince, P.57) His decision was to force the Jews in Malta to pay the tax of the ten
years. He issued a stern order which obliged each of the Jews to pay half of his estate or
he had to become a Christian and who “denies this, shall absolutely lose al he has.” (The
Jew of Malta, I. ii, 76) In this sense, Ferneze was a diabolic Machiavellian prince whose
major goal was to keep his power regardless of anything else.
All the Jews, except Barabas, agreed to renounce half of their belongings. Barabas
did not obey the order, he did not pay and he did not agree to abandon his religion to be
aconvert into Christianity. The Governor cautioned Barabas that it was better for him to
pay, otherwise they would confiscate all his wealth, “Either pay that, or we will seize on
all.” (The Jew of Malta, I. ii, 89) Barabas decided to obey telling them that he agreed to
follow the Jews saying “…you shall have half.’’(The Jew of Malta, I. ii, 90) Later
Barabas changed his mind and decided not to pay, and as a result Fernezes’ men
confiscated his wealth and turn his house into a convent.
Governor:
Offiicers:
… now Officers have you done?
I my Lord, we have seiz’d upon the goods
And wares of Barabas, which being valued
Amount to more than all the wealth in Malta
And of the other we have seized halfe.
(The Jew of Malta, I. ii, 131-134)
It seems that Ferneze’s hostility towards the Jews in Malta came out of their religion
which he hated in addition to their wealth which represented enough motive to seduce
him to find away to usurp it. Ferneze realized that the Jews would not agree to convert
into Christianity as a substitutive of paying the tax and that is what made one believe that
Ferneze’s intention was not to make the Jews share the state the situation of paying the
tribute, but he was trying to find the suitable excuse to exploit them and to take their
money. Ferneze was Machiavellian. He used religion as a pretext to account for his
action.
126
Governor:
No, Jew, we take particularly thine
To save the ruine of a multitude:
And better one want for a common good,
Then many perish for a privant man:
……………………………………..
Excesse of wealth is cause of covetousnesse:
And covetousnesse, oh ‘tis a monstrous sinne.
(The Jew of Malta, I. ii, 96-99 and 122-124)
Barabas determined to carry his revenge out upon the man who tyrannized him. In an
ideal embodiment of justifying the means by the end, Barabas undertook to take any
means in order to effect his aim, without an exception “Wherein these Christians have
oppressed me … We ought to make barre of no policie.” (The Jew of Malta, I. ii, 271273) Even religion and his daughter, Abigail, were not outside of Barabas’ thinking. He
should use whatever means to regain a part of his wealth hidden in the monastery, his
confiscated house.
Barabas:
Ten thousand Portagues besides great Perles,
Rich costly Jewels, and stones infinite,
Fearing the worst of this before it fell
I closely hid.
(The Jew of Malta, I. ii, 244-247)
Barabas taught his daughter to pretend that she intended to convert into Christianity so
that she would be able to enter the monastery and then to recover the hidden treasure.
Barabas: … but be thou so precise.
As they may think it done of Holinesse.
Intreat ’em faire, and give them friendly speech.
And seeme to them as if thy sinnes were great,
Till thou hast gotton to be entertain’d.
Abigail:
Thus father shall I much dissemble.
(The Jew of Malta, I. ii, 285-290)
Abigail achieved her task successfully, she got back her father’s jewels.
In Act II, Scene iii, the alliance between Barabas and Ithamore, the villain slave
bought by Barabas to be employed as an assistant to help him to accomplish his revenge,
indicates that the events of the play shifts into vice conspiracy. Ithamore was motivated
127
to hate Christians and that is why Barabas hailed him as an associate in hating Christians.
He said, “As of thy fellow; we are villaines both: Both circumcized, we hate Christians
both.” (The Jew of Malta, II, iii, 214-215) According to David M. Bevington, their claim
that their hostility towards Christians was an outcome of their injustice was no more than
a plea. The real motive was their villainy.96 “What we have in Barbaras, the popular
Mahiavel, the villain for the love of villainy.”97 Barabas himself conceded that:
Barabas:
As for my selfe, I walke abroad a nights
And kill sicke people groaning under walls:
Sometimes I goe about and payson wells;
…………………………………………..
And after that I was an Engineere,
And in the warres ‘twixt France and Germanie,
Under pretence of helping Charles the fifth,
Slew friend and enemy with my stratagems.
(The Jew of Malta, II. iii, 174-176, and 186-189)
Ithamore, on the other hand, did not deny his villainy when he said.
Ithamore:
One time I was an Hostler in an Inne,
And in the night time secretly would I steale
To travellers Chambers, and there cut their throats.
(The Jew of Malta, II. iii, 205-27)
It is true that Barbaras and Ithamore were villains, but one should not forget that
Barabas was treated unjustly and that is what created a type of sympathy for him and it
indicates, at the same time, that the Catholics were abhorrent in their behaviour with the
Jews of Malta. There is no doubt that Barabas was oppressed by Frernze who used the
welfare as an excuse to seize Barabas’ wealth completely. This situation offered enough
reason to justify Barabas’ revenge.
Firstly, Barabas aimed his evil to the young men Lodowick, Fernezes’ son, and
Mathias, Abigail’s lover. It seems that he started his revenge campaign against the
Governor by killing his son. He always justified the means he used by the goal he wanted
to achieve. Barabas exploited Abigail’s love for Mathias as a chance that should be
exploited to achieve his intrigue. Ignoring his daughter’s feelings, he asked Abigail to
128
pretend that she has fallen in love with Ferneze’s son even though she was fond of
Mathias, Lodowick’s friend, and they were planning to get marriage. Barbaras’ aim was
to cheat Mathias and Lodowick and to push each one against the other as a result of their
jealousy. He used religion to justify his request to Abigail convincing her that she
committed no mistake.
Barbaras:
It’s no sinne to deceive a Christian;
For they themselves hold it a principle,
Faith is not to be held with Heretickes;
But all are Heriticks that are not Jewes.
(The Jew of Malta, II. iii, 309-312)
Barabas, with the help of his slave, was able to lead them to a secret duel that caused their
death.
Henceforth, Barabas’ actions would be motivated “by the need to suppress those who
know too much or have revolted against him, or by the desire to further his revenge
against Ferneze and the government.”98 Abigail knew that her father had handled
Mathia’s death, she turned a nun in earnest and that is what put her in a position of a
potential enemy to her father for the reasons reflected in the following speech:
Barabas:
I feare she knowes (‘tis so) of my device
In Don Mathias and Lodovicoes deaths:
If so, ‘tis time that it be seene into:
For she that varies from me in beleefe
Gives great presumption that she loves me not;
Or loving, doth dislike of something done.
(The Jew of Malta, III. iv, 7-12)
Barabas believed that Abigail would betray him and as a result he used Ithamore to
poison her and all the nuns in the monastery, the aim was to protect himself. When she
was about to die, Abigail confessed his father’s plan that caused deaths of Mathia and
Lodowick. “And by my father’s practice, which is there set downe at large, the Gallants
were both slaine.” (The Jew of Malta, III. vi, 28-29)
As a result of their hypocrisy, the Friars, Jacomco and Barnardino, were caught in
Barbaras’ traps. When they went to confront nim, Barbaras realized that Abigail had
129
reported to them about his crime. “I fear they know we sent the poyson’d broth.” (The
Jew of Malta, IV. i, 26) He decided to pretend that he wanted to convert into Christianity
and he would donate his wealth to the monastery he would join and that is what brought
each one against the other.
Barabas:
1. Fryar:
2. Fryar:
Great summes of mony lying in the bancho;
All this I’ll give to some religious house
So I may be baptiz’d and live therein.
Oh good Barabas come to our house
Oh no , good Barabas come to our house .
(The Jew of Malta, IV. I, 74-78)
It was clear that the Friars were listed as Barabas’ next targets. He declared that he
had “such a plot for both their lives, As never Jew nor Christian knew the like.” (The Jew
of Malta, IV. i, 117-118) Barnardino would be strangled by Barabas and Ithamore.
Jacomo would be hanged thinking that he was the murderer.
Barabas’ crimes were discovered and his slave, Ithamore, confessed everything in
front of the Governor, “Guilty, my Lord, I confesse…” (The Jew ofMalta, V. i, 28)
Although Ferneze tried to kill him, Barabas was able to escape by drinking sleepy
beverage. The Governor and his men believed that he was dead and threw him outside the
fortress “To be a prey for Vultures and wild beasts.” (The Jew of Malta, V. i, 59)
Barabas, on the other hand, promised that he would carry out his revenge. He said:
Barabas:
For by my meanes Calymath shall enter in.
I’le helpe to slay their children and their wives,
To fire the Churches, pull their houses downe,
Take my goods too, and seize upon my lands:
I hope to see the Governor a slave.
(The Jew of Malta, V. i, 63-67)
Machiavelli defined three methods by which one could acquire power to govern the
state. Among these methods was the use of malice. One could be a “prince through some
wicked and nefarious means…” (The Prince, P.30) Barabas achieved this idea perfectly.
He had been made the ruler of Malta as a reward of his treason which facilitated the task
of occupying Malta by the Turks. Barabas successfully carried his plan out. He was able
130
to “lead five hundred souldiers through the vault” and “open the gate for [Calymath] to
enter in”, (The Jew of Malta, V. i, 91-93) and that is what enabled the Turkish leader,
Calymath, to enter Malta and to arrest the Governor and his men.
Calymath:
Barabas:
And Barabas, as erst we promis’d thee,
For thy dearest we make thee Governor
…………………………………………
Thanks, my Lord.
(The Jew of Malta, V .ii, 9-12)
But Barabas did not take advantage of the power he gained and consequently he was
unsuccessful in achieving Machiavelli’s policy. This position aroused fear within himself
as reflected in the following speech:
Barabas:
But Malta hates me, and in hating me
My life’s in danger, and what boots it thee
Poore Barabas, to be the Governour,
When as thy life shall be at their command?
(The Jew of Malta, V. ii, 30-34)
Barabas started to conspire again. He determined to spin a conspiracy with the old
Governor, Ferneze, and the aim was to return Malta to the Christians. Barabas entered
into a pact with Ferneze, regardless of Machiavelli’s rule “that anyone who is the cause
of another becoming powerful comes to ruin himself…” (The Prince, P.15) Ferneze, who
was arrested, did not forget to follow Machiavelli’s principle “it is…necessary to be a
fox…” (ThePrince, P. 60) Ferneze used to keep abreast with Barabas while he was trying
to eradicate the Turks, but he would hunt the for chance before it was too late.
Governor:
Doe but bring this to pass which thou pretendest,
Deale truly with us as thou intimatest,
And I will send amonge’st the Citizens
And by my letters privately procure
Great summes of mony for thy recompence:
Nay more, doe this, and live thou Governor still.
(The Jew of Malta, V. ii, 84-89)
131
It seems that Marlowe wanted to express an idea that the downfall of his tragic hero
would come as a result of his distaste of Machiavelli’s teachings and that is what
represented a type of defence and appreciation towards Machiavelli’s ideas. Marlowe
wanted to advise any prince to track Machiavelli’s principles, otherwise failure would be
the final result.
According to the pact between Ferneze and Barabas, Ferneze would regain his power
as a Governor in addition to his wealth in exchange for collecting tribute for Barabas.
Barabas’ duty was to entice the Turks into a deathly snare and to annihilate them.
Barabas:
Governor:
… I will warrant Malta free for ever.
Here is my hand, beleeve me, Barabas,
I will be there, and doe as thou desirest
(The Jew of Malta, V. ii, 101-103)
Barabas was planning to come back to his first position as a wealthy merchant supported
by the Governor who would practically be Baraba’s means to collect more and more
money. As a result of being cleverer than Barabas in managing state affairs, Ferneze was
able to act according to Machiavelli’s doctrines. Machiavelli always heartens the Prince
not to put honesty in his consideration during intercourse the others. Machiavelli believed
“that the princes who have accomplished great deads are those who have thought little
about keeping faith and who have known how cunningly to manipulate men’s minds”
(The Prince, P.60) Machiavelli’ advised the wise prince that he “cannot and should not
keep his word…men are a wicked lot and will not keep their promises to you, you
likewise need not to keep yours to them.” (The Prince, PP. 60-61) Ferneze put these
teachings in use, he did not hesitate to break his promise to Barbaras who was the first to
commit disloyalty. Ferneze reported everything to the Turks and that is what caused
Barbaras’ death.
Irving Ribner states that in all Barabas’ actions there was “little than can be traced to
anything in Machiavelli’s writings… The one political action he does undertake,
however, during his brief rule as Governor of Malta, is in direct contradiction to some of
Machiavelli’s most often stated maxims.”99 As it is elaborated before, it is impossible to
132
agree with Ribner’s idea simply because the events of the play confirm that Barabas’
operations represente an axis around which many of Machiavelli’s ideas were centered.
Barabas was Machiavellian, his mind was always controlled by the concept of justifying
the means by the end. But Barabas’ concern was not the political scene of Malta, he
aimed to maintain and keep money which, with no doubt, represented another type of
power. At the beginning of the play, Barabas addmitted frankly that “I must confesse we
come not to be kings.” (The Jew of Malta, I. i, 129) In the last Act, when he was made
the ruler of Malta, it was undeniable that Barabas abandoned one of Machiavelli’s
important rules, but, at the same time, he was gripped by the idea of justifying the means
he used. Barabas made an agreement with Ferneze to reoccupy the position of the
Governor for the sake of using him as a means of accumulating more money. He was
planning to enlarge his economic empire by the tribute supposed to be collected for him
by Ferneze in addition to his trade which would not be submissive to any tax. In short,
Barabas was interested in financial gain. He failed to act as a politician, he could not
exploit the power as a Governor. Barabas trusted the wrong man, the man whom he had
betrayed to the Turks. He committed this fatal mistake thinking that Ferneze would be
grateful for making him the Governor of Malta again. He was not able to be aware of
what Ferneze was. Barabas did not know that this action would be the direct cause of his
tragic conclusion. Ferneze, on the other hand, was shrewd, he expressed political
craftiness in dealing with Barabas. He succeeded in tracking Machiavelli’s
recommendations, he did not waver to do whatever was necessary in order to regain his
position that he had lost as a result of Barabas’ treason, so one could conclude that
Marlowe was more satisfied in presenting Machiavelli’s teachings by Ferneze’s character
rather than that of Barabas.
133
Notes
1. C. R. Verma. Studies in Literature, (Delhi: Doaba house, 1998), p. 422.
2. Lisa Hopkins, Christopher Marlowe: Renaissance Dramatist, (Great Britain:
Edinburgh University Press Ltd., 2008), pp. 3-4.
3. David Riggs, “Marlowe’s life”, in The Cambridge Companion to Christopher
Marlowe, ed. Patrick Cheney (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 26.
4. Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, ed. Louis B. Wright (New York:
Washington Square Press, INC., 1959), p.viii.
5. Avraham Oz, “Introduction,’’ in New Casebooks: Marlowe, ed. Avraham Oz,
(London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 1-2.
6. Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, ed. Harold Osborne (London: University
Tutorial Press Ltd., nd) p. xii.
7. Julie
Renee
Phelan,
“Biography:
Christopher
Marlowe”,
http://celebrities.wikinut.com/Biography%3A-Christopher-Marlowe/1qca
in
14.q/,
p.1 of 3.
8. Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, ed. John D. Jump, (New York: Methuen &
Co., 1962), p. xviii.
9. Bamber Gascoigne, “Christopher Marlowe”, in http://kirjasto.sci.fi/marlowe,htm,
p. 2 of 6.
10. Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, ed. Ramji Lall, (New Delhi: Rama
Brothers India PVT. LTD., 2008), p. 5.
11. J.A.
Downie, “Marlowe: facts and fictions”, in Constructing Christopher
Marlowe, eds. J.A. Downie and J.T. Parnell (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2000), p. 26.
12. J. B. Steane, Marlowe: a Critical Study. (New York: Cambridge Univerity Press,
1964), p. 3.
13. Martin Stephen, English Literature: a Study Guide,
2000), p.109.
134
3rd
ed., (England: Longman,
14. Allan A. Zarbock, Machiavellian Influence in the Plays of Christopher
Marlowe, (United States: Lulu com., 2007), pp. 7-8.
15. Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, ed., Ramji Lall, pp. 12-13.
16. Judith O’Neill, “Introduction”, in Critics on Marlowe, ed. Judith O’Neill (London:
George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1969), p. 18.
17. Bhim S. Dahiya, A new History of English Literature, (Delhi: Doaba
Publications, 2005), p. 46.
18. I. N. Mundra and S.C. Mundra, A History of English Literature, (India: Prakash
Book Depot, 2007), P. 159.
19. Ibid, p. 165.
20. Avraham Oz, p. 3.
21. C. R. Verma, p. 422.
22. T. S. Eliot. Selected Essays, (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1932), p.118.
23. J. B. Steane, p. 62.
24. Christopher Marlowe, Tamburlaine, ed. J. W. Harpper, (London: Ernest Benn
Limited, 1971), pp. viii-x.
25. Millar Maclure “Introduction”, in Marlowe: the Critical Heritage, ed. Millar
Maclure, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1979), p. 4.
26. Irving Ribner, “The Idea of History in Marlowe’s Tamburlaine”, in Elizabethan
Drama: Modern Essays in Criticism, (New York: Oxford University Press,
1961), p. 84.
27. Lisa Hopkins, p. 24.
28. Thomas McAlindon, “Tamburlaine the Great and The Spanish Tragedy: the
Genesis of a Tradition”, in Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Winter,
1982), p. 68.
29. ________ “Tamburlaine the Great”, in http://www.gradesaver.com/ tamburlainethe-great/wikipedia/introduction, p. 1 0f 2.
30. Charles Whitney, Early Responses to Renaissance Drama, (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 17.
135
31. Stevie Simkin, Marlowe: The plays, (New York: Palgrave, 2001), pp. 15-16.
32. W. L. Godshalk, The Marlovian World Picture, (Paris: Mouton and Co., 1974),
p. 117.
33. Charles Whitney, p. 17.
34. Christopher Marlowe, The Complete Works. Vol. I, 2ed ed., ed. Fredson Bowers
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 79. Subsequent references to
this play will be to edition.
35. Stevie Simkin, p. 18.
36. Harry Levin, Christopher Marlowe: the Overreacher, (London: Faber and Faber
Limited, 1961), p. 75.
37. _________
“Tamburlaine
the
Great”
in
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/dfs-0000-0021-0/dfs-0000-0021-000025.html, p. 9 of 22.
38. Jeff
Daily, “Christian Underscoring in Tamburlaine the Great, Part II”, in
http://www.rtjournal.org./vol-4/no-2/dailey.htm1, p. 1 of 7.
39. Irving Ribner, “Marlowe and Machiavelli”, in Comparative Literature, Vol. 6, No.
4 (Autumn. 1954), p. 353.
40. Allan A. Zarbock, pp. 20-21.
41. W. L. Godshalk, p. 125.
42. Stevie Simkin, p. 130.
43. Allan A. Zarbock, pp. 24-25.
44. Maureen
Cutajar,
“Literary
Analysis:
Tamburlaine
The
Great”,
in
http://www.helium.com/items/1710278.tamburlaine-by-ChristopherMarlowe, p. 2 of 2.
45. Eugene M. Waith, “Marlowe’s Herculean Hero”, in Marlowe: Tamburlaine the
Great, Edward the Second, and The Jew of Malta, ed. John Russell Brown
(London: Macmillan Education Ltd., 1982), p. 103.
46. J. Warshaw, “Machiavelli in Marlowe”, in, The Sewanee Review, Vol. 24, No, 4
(Oct., 1916) p. 434.
136
47. Liane Marquis, “Marlowe, Tamburlaine, and the demise of traditional Elizabethan
monarchy”,
(2006).
Honors
Junior
Projects.
Paper
28.
In
http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d10001517. p. 25.
48. Irving Ribner, “Marlowe and Machiavelli”, p. 355.
49. Willard Thorp, “The Ethical Problem in Marlowe’s Tamburlaine”, in The Journal
of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 29, No.3 (Jul., 1930) p. 385.
50. Allan A. Zarbock, pp. 35.
51. Julie
Renee
Phelan,
“Doctor
Faustus:
Introduction”,
in
http://reviews.wikinut.com/Doctor-Faustus%3A-Introduction/221uog4t/, p. 2 of 3.
52. John Jump, “Introduction”, in Marlowe, Doctor Faustus: a Casebook, ed. John
Jump (London: Macmillan and Co. LTD., 1969), p. 11.
53. J. B. Steane, pp. 119-120.
54. Julie Renee Phelan, p. 1 of 3.
55. Naomi
Baker,
“Christopher
Marlowe’s
Doctor
Faustus”,
in
www.royalexchangethetre.org.uk/.../Christopher-Marlowe-Naomi-Baker, p.3 of 4.
56. Joseph Westlund, “The Orthodox Christian Framework of Marlowe’s Faustus”, in,
Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 3, No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean
Drama (Spring, 1963), pp. 200-201.
57. Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus and Other Plays, eds. David Bevington
and Eric Rasmussen (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), P. xii.
58. Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, ed. John D. Jump, p. xIvii.
59. Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, ed. Louis B. Wright, p. xviii.
60. M. C. Bradbrook, Themes and Conventions of Elizabethan Tragedy, (New Delhi:
Manas Saikia for Foundation Books Pvt Ltd., 2006), pp. 144-145.
61. Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, ed. Kitty Datta, (New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1980), p. 67. Subsequences references to this play will to this
edition.
62. M. M, Mahood, “Marlowe’s Heroes”, in Elizabethan Drama: Modern Essays in
Criticism, p. 104.
137
63. Stevie Simkin, p. 21.
64. Harry Levin, Christopher Marlowe: the Overreacher, pp. 132-133.
65. Stevie Simkin, p. 248.
66. J. C. Maxwell, “The Sin of Faustus”, in Marlowe: Doctor Faustus, ed. John
Jump, p. 90.
67. U. M. Ellis-Fermor, Christopher Marlowe, (USA: Archon Books, 1967), p. 73.
68. Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, ed. by Keith Walker (Edinburgh: Oliver
and Boyd, 1973), p. 6.
69. Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, ed. Louis B. Wright, p. xx.
70. Mark
Moran,
“Machiavelli
Meets
Faustus’’,
in
htt://personal.markmoran.net/Writing/Colloq%202%20%20second%20paper.htm1, p. 1 of 3.
71. Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, ed. John D. Jump, P. xIvii.
72. Ayse Piril Eryilmaz, “Features of Renaissance Individualism and References to
Machiavellian Politics in Christopher Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta, The Tragical
History of Doctor Faustus and Tamburlaine the Great”, Middle East Technical
University: Unpublished Dissertation, 2007, p. 28.
73. Vikramaditya Rai, Literary Essays, (Delhi: Doaba Book House, 1970), p. 138.
74. Christopher Marlowe, The Jew of Malta, ed. N. W. Bawcutt (U.S.A: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1978), p.1.
75. Julian M. C. Bowsher, “Marlowe and the Rose”, in Constructing Christopher
Marlowe, p. 34.
76. M. C. Bradbrook, “The Jew of Malta and Edward II”, in Marlowe: a Collection
of Critical Essaysed. Clifford Leech, (New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private
Limited, 1979), pp. 120-122.
77. Abdulaziz Al-mutawa “The Representation of Religion and Politics in Marlowe’s
The Massacre at Paris, The Jew of Malta and Edward II”, University of
Leicester: Unpublished Dissertation, 2008), p. 128.
78. M. M, Mahood, p. 112.
138
79. Christopher Marlowe, The Jew of Malta, ed. N. W. Bawcutt, p. 2.
80. David H. Thuren, “Economic and Ideological Exchange in Marlowe’s The Jew of
Malta”, in New Casebooks: Marlowe, p. 136.
81. James Broughton, “The Jew of Malta”, in Marlowe: the Critical Heritage, p. 88.
82. Lisa Hopkins, p. 32.
83. Michael Hattaway, Renaissance and Reformations (U.S.A: Blackwell Publishing
Ltd., 2005), pp. 115-116.
84. Harry Levin, “More of the Serpent”, in Marlow: Tamburlaine the Great,
Edward the Second, and The Jew of Malta, p. 184.
85. Harry Levin, Christopher Marlowe: the Overreacher, pp. 87-88.
86. Edward Meyer, Machiavelli and the Elizabethan Drama, (USA: Weimar Verlag
Von Emil Felber, 1897), p. 39.
87. M. M, Mahood, p. 112.
88. David M. Bevington, “The Jew of Malta”, in Marlowe: a Collection of Critical
Essays, p. 144.
89. Wilber Sanders, The Dramatist and the Received Idea (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1980), p. 58.
90. Edward Meyer, p. 41.
91. Christopher Marlowe, The Complete Works, Vol. 1. 2ed ed., ed. Fredson Bowers,
p. 263. Subsequent references to this play will be to this edition.
92. Stevie Simkin, pp. 23-24.
93. Edward Meyer, p. 37.
94. Allan A. Zarbock, p.64.
95. David M. Bevington, “The Jew of Malta”, in Marlowe: a Colliction of Critical
Essays, p. 151.
96. Ibid.
97. Irving Ribner, “Marlowe and Machiavelli”, p. 349.
98. David M. Bevington, pp. 152-153.
99. Irving Ribner, “Marlowe and Machiavelli”, p. 352
139