The period called the Golden Age of English Drama was a revolutionary period in the portrayal of human thought and behavior in society. Some even argue that this period in Renaissance England had a great influence in the development of English identity. At that time, Europe was experiencing many changes in all social spheres, and such changes were strongly reflected in the English theater. Among the many great playwrights of the time that this essay will focus on was Christopher Marlowe, particularly two of his plays: Tamburlaine the Great and Doctor Faustus. It was the thinking of Marlowe and his contemporaries that arguably had the greatest influence in shaping English identity and the society of early modern England. The ideas of Marlowe and his colleagues, particularly those belonging to the titular "School of the Night", were seen as extravagant and atheistic by many critics and as a result the group was heavily persecuted. However, as I will try to argue, the ideas of the group and especially Marlowe, were more to the benefit of the people rather than to the detriment of the government. In this regard I will make two statements. The first is that Christopher Marlowe represented notions of politics and religion in the use of theatricality (an umbrella term that I will use to refer to all physical manifestations of a play such as props, sets, etc.). The second is that Marlowe embodied his ideas about humanism in his two eponymous heroes to illustrate that one can decide one's own destiny and live on one's own terms without the intrusion of politics and religion. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To begin, I would like to discuss some terms that I believe are crucial to the basis of my arguments. The first thing I would like to discuss is the title itself. The "Knight" refers specifically to Christopher Marlowe. 'Night', as discussed in the introduction, refers to the enigmatic 'School of Night', a group made up of many artists and scholars such as Marlowe, Sir Walter Raleigh and, to some extent, even William Shakespeare. Because the group was so secretive, it's really hard to pin down their exact motivations, and some even openly claim their existence. However, the interpretation I would like to examine is their criticism of government and, in Marlowe's case, the interaction between politics and religion. Many of his critics accused him of some version of the following quote: “…stating that our [Savior] is nothing but a [deceiver], and Moses is nothing but a [summoner] and a seducer of the people, and the Holy Bible is nothing other than an [evoker] and seducer of the people. but [vain] and idle stories, and all religion is nothing but a [device] of [politics]” (Hunter, 149). This quote is supposedly attributed to Marlowe, although quotes like these have dangerously lackluster evidence to back them up, and clearly describes his feelings towards government and politics and it is this interpretation of his notions that I wish to use in this essay. As I mentioned, the quote in particular has questionable validity, but many argue that Marlowe was responsible for some version of the above quote and many believe he expressed similar notions on occasion. From this I can conclude that Marlowe was quite aware that politics was quite influenced by religion and in retrospect it is easy to argue this as many English monarchs generally clung to the "divine right to power". Another thing I would like to discuss is the notion ofatheism. Marlowe is often considered an atheist, and this connotation apparently gives him an unwarranted stigma. The current definition of atheism differs greatly from that used centuries ago. Today we define an atheist as someone who denounces the notion of divinity and religious conventions for a more humanistic approach to life. In Renaissance England the term was used as a throwaway word to indicate immoral behavior. Nicholas Davidson argues that “…in the 16th century, words like 'atheist' and 'atheism' had no clear intellectual connotation, and were used mainly as offensive terms or as a literary device on which to hang more orthodox arguments” (Davidson, 132). Davidson argues that the term was used so loosely that its potency in early modern England is questionable at best. Furthermore, some scholars agree that the term “atheist” was synonymous with what we would call anarchist. That is, not someone who is in open rebellion against the government per se, but simply someone who strongly questions politics. And, if the above depiction of Marlowe is to be believed, then the garb of "atheist" becomes more fitting for him. Marlowe was certainly no stranger to questioning government powers and policies. Michael Kelly states that many writers before and after Marlowe used the written word to confidently criticize the government through satire (Kelly, 3). This quote, combined with everything we have observed, creates the sense that Marlowe did indeed believe in the presence and power of religion, however, as I argue, he believed that the power it had over people was less than the innate human power, the idea of 'humanism. From this I can conclude that Marlowe believed that religion was responsible for the underlying functioning of society and that he had strong disagreements about its effectiveness. Now that the bases have been covered, I think I can support my first claim: that Christopher Marlowe stages his plays in such a way as to represent the presence of religion and politics as theatrical elements. I will use the theatrical element to refer to each part of the process of creating the show which includes things like sets, costumes, props, and so on. I believe this connection between theater and religion is reasonable given Marlowe's feelings about religion as a whole. In his article, Davidson mentions that certain intellectuals ("atheists") were described by my writer Thomas Nashe as those "whose position and opinion is that there is no Hel or misery but opinion"; they deny the accuracy of the Scriptures and call Moses a magician” (Davidson, 135). This quote is not specifically attributed to Marlowe but is a fairly common view held by critics of religion and government. Following this, the next quote is more specifically linked to Marlowe: "I look upon religion as a childish toy, / And I hold there is no sin but ignorance" (Jew of Malta, Prologue 14-15). This quote is taken from the prologues of The Jew of Malta, another of Marlowe's works. It is spoken by Machiavelli, who was known for his problems with religion long before Marlowe. The mention of things like "toys" and "magicians" in reference to religion is what first allowed me to make the connection between theatricality and religion and although I believe the connection is not absolutely concrete I do not believe it is such a leap far to do. Furthermore, I believe that religion and plays share the quality of relying heavily on trust, that is, the notion of suspension of disbelief. In a theater performance the audience member must believe that what they are seeing is the truth in order to immerse themselvescompletely into the action, although even the most ordinary audience members in Marlowe's day knew that everything is fabricated for their entertainment. Religion itself is based on the idea of ​​belief and unquestioned faith in God. Even though many believers cannot specifically explain the things proposed by religious texts, they still have faith in things like miracles and God's omnipotence. In the following sections the specific examination of Tamburlaine and Doctor Faustus will, in my opinion, make this connection more evident. With this in mind, let's now take a closer look at the works mentioned above to see how this statement helps support my second claim: that Marlowe portrays his characters in such a way as to propagate the idea that human power is beyond above the power of things like politics and religion. The first play I'll look at is Tamburlaine mainly because it's the first in terms of chronology. The connection between theater and politics is clearly evident here as politics and war are what fuel the plot and determine the actions of most of the characters. Tamburlaine seems to stand out from all the other characters in terms of actions, behavior and morality and I think that's intentional. Not only because he is the main character, but because he wants to embody the notion of humanism. The first thing I want to address is Tamburlaine's obsession with crowns. In 1.II.vi. Tamburlaine gives his famous soliloquy on the aspiration towards greater things and “the ripest fruit of all, /That perfect bliss and only happiness, /The sweet fruit of an earthly crown.” This quote highlights two very important things: the first is the aspiration which I will return to later and the second is the idea of ​​the crown. And that's what I want to put under the microscope. It is the sensation of an earthly crown that Tamburlaine seeks rather than the physical object. I think it's too drastic to say that Tamburlaine doesn't care completely about the physical crown, but it seems reasonable to say that he's more interested in the power it provides. To him it's just a prop and I think that's what sets him apart from the rest of the characters, such as Mycetes reaching far enough to hide it in a hole in the ground. Furthermore, no matter how many crowns he wins, they are never enough. He always seems to want more, and that's what ultimately kills him. This is what Marlowe was trying to accomplish with Tamburlaine: to show what aspiration can lead to. And it's fair to interpret Tamburlaine's conquest in a negative light and comparing him to Icarus or other tragic heroes who fell due to ambition, but one thing that can't be questioned is what he was ultimately able to accomplish. Another thing to look at is specifically what he was able to accomplish and the position he came from. From the beginning Tamburlaine is a stranger to the political sphere “Often have I heard your majesty complain / Of Tamburlaine, that stout Scythian thief,.... / Hoping (deceived by dreamy prophecies) / To reign in Asia, and with barbarous weapons / Becoming monarch of the East (1.Ii 35-6 and 41-3). He also refers to his pastor parents as an example of how far he grew up. Yet, even so, he is able to have a great physical impact on the world around him as he states: “Here in Damascus I will take stock / That the perpendicular will begin (1.IV.iv 84-5). This quote refers to him "redrawing" the map to put his kingdom at the center of the world, exemplifying his power. What all these quotes illustrate is another quality of humanism that contrasts heavily with the power of politics and religion: the ability to live and die on one's own terms. Everything Tamburlaine does is on her terms. For example, the whole exercise of using different colored curtains to reflecthis mood and actions simply seem very foreign to the scope of the play. The colors reflect his actions and in whatever undertaking he endeavors he cannot be dissuaded or stopped: not only does he massacre the virgins of Babylon despite their pleas, but he also kills his own son to the chagrin of all those around him. But perhaps the greatest example of how he took control of his life is, ironically, his death. Over the course of the work Tamburlaine launches numerous challenges to the gods (this is not so much an example of modern atheism but more a Marlovian interpretation of criticism of power), starting from Jupiter and then moving on to Muhammad, with or "answering" his challenges. That is, there are no repercussions for his actions and for him that means he has no opposition. As a matter of fact, he also imagines himself doing God's work, "I who am called the scourge and wrath of God" (1.III.iii 44). He adopts the title “scourge of God” because he does what God cannot. It can also be argued that this is another way in which Marlowe shows the possible uselessness of religion. Regardless, what must be inferred from his constant tormenting of the gods is that he eventually dies. In class we partly discussed the two main interpretations of this. The first is that his "warrior spirit" was too much for his body to handle and he dies as a result. The other is that the gods finally had enough and decided to punish him. The actual choice, in my opinion, is irrelevant. Whether the gods kill him or not, he still dies on his own terms. As he dies he continues to make decisions and determine what needs to be done after his death, but what is more important is what he doesn't do. That is, not once does he beg for his life or regret what he has done. He does not recognize that he has been beaten. As a matter of fact, he sees this as a step forward, as an evolution for him because he finally gets to go and conquer heaven (as idealistic as that may seem) and is reunited, hopefully, with Zenocrates. Taking one's life into one's own hands is a fundamental principle of humanism and is a direct contrast to destiny-based or religious perspectives and the puppet control that monarchies exercised over their subjects. These beliefs were very unique to Tamburlaine as they were one of the many reasons why she stood out. However, what I believe is the most obvious example of Tamburlaine exemplifying humanist characteristics is the following speech she gives in the second part of the play. While scolding his eldest son for being a pacifist rather than a warmonger, he exclaims: Look at me, your father, who conquered kings, and, with his army, marched around the earth, quite unscarred and unscarred . any wound, which during the wars did not lose a drop of blood, and see him pierce his flesh to teach you all (2.III.ii. 110-4). The first time I learned about it was in the theater and it seemed incredible to me: Tamburlaine in this case is almost superhuman. Marlowe explicitly states that after decades of conquering most of the known world, Tamburlaine remained somewhat intact. No weapon, no soldier, nothing can touch him but himself and to me this shows how different he is from the game. It's almost as if he's an omnipotent observer or, better yet, a puppeteer who firmly controls the flow of the story. And by making Tamburlaine above the pomp and circumstance of the play, Marlowe shows that it is possible to take power into one's own hands and somehow ignore the pressures and influences of the world around him, at least as far as politics and religion are concerned. If anything, Tamburlaine explores the inherent power held by human beings and how they can fight for their own identityindividualising. However, some scholars such as William Stull, who examines the works in terms of psychology, state that Marlowe fails in his mission when it comes to Tamburlaine by saying "[but] social interest plays no part in any part of Tamburlaine" ( Stull, 449). To answer, I believe that to develop a more collective identity it is more important to start at an individual level and in a way this is what Marlowe was also trying to show. Because Tamburlaine was such a charismatic person, he managed to attract many followers who eventually shared his vision to great effect. Now I would like to look at Doctor Faustus and how the eponymous hero embodies similar qualities to Tamburlaine, to much the same end. As Tamburlaine did with politics, Doctor Faustus has a very strong connection between theater and religion. The plot is about a fight for the soul of the main character and all the props and characters involved are religious in nature. To begin with, I would like to examine an interpretation of the work that seems a little obscure to me, but no less powerful for this. During the course of the opera, Fausto asks Mephistopheles many questions about the world, physical and metaphysical. The latter responds, as many scholars maintain, in a sarcastic or condescending manner. Stull observes, “In response to even the “finest questions” of cosmology, [Mephistopheles] answers with truths worthy of a schoolboy” (Stull, 457). An example of one of these would be when Faustus asks Mephistopheles what hell is and the latter replies that "all places will be hell that is not heaven" (v. 128). It is clear to me that Mephistopheles could be perceived as treating Faustus like a child. However, more than anything else with respect to the idea of ​​this essay, I would like to give yet another interpretation. To put it plainly: what if Mephistopheles didn't really know the answers? There seems to be no evidence that he actually does so and so he offers Faustus common low-status answers or answers provided by religious canons: “Equally central, it was believed, was the preference for natural over supernatural explanations, the idea that ' all things [pass] through nature, or fortune'. So God's active supervision of the world was called into question” (Hunter, 141). Sure, it seems like a weaker interpretation, but it's at least one that can be taken into consideration. On a metaphysical level I can argue that this was simply Marlowe's attempt to reinforce the idea that religion cannot provide answers to these questions because of a thought, quite common, among Marlowe's contemporaries, "...Christianity, Judaism and Islam - had, it was occasionally suggested, but were all invented only for political purposes, to exalt their founders and to secure the power of secular rulers” (Davidson, 137). proves at least that there is something to question when it comes to Doctor Faustus. The next thing I would like to consider is a classical interpretation of the work as a kind of allegory of the Calvinist notion of predestination The human soul is destined to go to heaven or hell before birth and that no action on earth can influence the decision in any way. This seems very problematic to me because, if this were the case, the work does nothing but highlight the 'ineffectiveness of religion. What I want to highlight is the presence of good and bad spirits. As we mentioned in class, these two characters represent the dichotomy of Faustus' soul as he debates between repenting and sinning respectively. Now, if we were to consider that the idea of ​​predestination was a real doctrine, then we would have to conclude that the presence of angels is made.