John Mason’un "The Turke" Başlıklı “İntikam Tragedyasında” Makyavelist Müslüman Türk ve Katolik İtalyan

Year 2013, Volume: 53 Issue: 1, 27 - 40, 01.01.2013

Sıla Şenlen Güvenç

Abstract

Machiavelli’nin liderlik vasıflarını, pratik siyaset anlayışını ve her ne pahasına olursa olsun gücü elde etme ve koruma fikrini vurgulayan siyasi felsefesi, 16. ve 17. yüzyıl İngiliz tiyatrosunda oldukça etkili olmuş ve dönemin oyunlarına yansımıştır. Bu felsefeye uygun olarak, sahnedeki Makyavelist tiplemesi zeki, güçlü, riyakâr, ikna edici, fırsatçı, sahtekâr ve şiddete meyilli bir karakterdir. John Mason’un An Excellent Tragedy of Mulleasses the Turke, and Borgias Governour of Florence 1607 adlı oyunu biri İtalyan Borgias ve diğeri Türk Mulleases olmak üzere iki yabancı Makyavelist karakter içermektedir. Genelde Đngiliz Rönesans tiyatrosunda Hıristiyan yabancılarla, Hıristiyan olmayan yabancıların temsili arasında fark mevcuttur; Doğu’yu ya da İslâmı temsil eden Türkler, tiyatro eserlerinde Hıristiyanlarla mukayese edilerek Hıristiyanlık ve Hıristiyan Avrupa’nın ‘üstünlüğünü’ ortaya koymak amacıyla kullanılır. Ancak söz konusu tragedyada, Hıristiyan Đtalyan, Müslüman Türk kadar acımasız ve düzenbazdır. Bu sıra dışı durumun sebebi Borgias’ın Hıristiyanlıktan çok Roma Katolik Kilisesi’ni temsil etmesidir. Đngiltere Katolik Kilisesi ile bağlarını 16. yüzyılın ortalarında resmen kesip Protestanlığa yöneldiği için, Katoliklik Osmanlı Türkleri tarafından temsil edilen Đslâm kadar tehlikeli görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada Mason’un “İntikam Tragedyası” olarak nitelendirilen The Turke adlı eserindeki iki Makyavel karakter bu doğrultuda ele alınacaktır.

Keywords

John Mason, Kral I. James Dönemi İngiliz Tiyatrosu, İntikam Tragedyası, Makyavelizm, Müslüman Türk Makyavel, Katolik İtalyan Makyavel, Cesare Borgia, Mulleasess (MollaHasan)

A “State-Villaine Must Be Like The Winde, / That Flies Unseene Yet Lifts An Ocean”: Machiavellian Italian and Turk in John Mason’s "The Turke"

Abstract

Machiavelli’s political philosophy emphasizing leadership qualities, a sense of practical politics, and the intellect to attain and maintain power at all costs, has been greatly influential in 16th and 17th century English drama. In accordance with this philosophy, as expressed in Machiavelli’s Prince and Discourses, the stage Machiavellian, as exhibited by characters ranging from Marlowe’s Tamburlaine to Shakespeare’s Edmund and Richard III, is intelligent, persuasive, conniving, opportunist and inclined to violence. A Jacobean play that incorporates two types of Machiavellians is John Mason’s An Excellent Tragedy of Mulleasses the Turke, and Borgias Governour of Florence 1607 ; Borgias –an Italian and Mulleasses –a Turk. It is not surprising to see such Machiavellians on the Renaissance stage, but the representation of these particular characters side by side is noteworthy. The majority of the Renaissance English plays represent foreigners according to their position with respect to England and Christianity. Thus, there are differences of representation between Christian and non-Christian foreigners. Generally, Turks –a term that applied to indicate Seljuks Turks, ‘Othomans’, Moors, Arabs, Greeks, Persians or any nation in the boundaries of the Orient in early modern period- in English drama were allegorical figures symbolizing the Orient, the East or Islam. They were compared and contrasted with Christians in order to define Englishness and illustrate the ‘superiority’ of their culture/religion. But in the Turke, the Christian Italian is as cruel and devious as the Muslim Turk. Thus, he represents the Roman Catholic Church instead of Christianity. Since England officially broke off with the Catholic Church in the mid-sixteenth century,Catholicism appears to be as much a threat to England as the ‘Mohammedans’ chiefly represented by the Ottoman Turk. The aim of this paper is to examine these two particular Machiavellian characters in Mason’s “tragedy of blood” in relation to their sources and popular notions about them to show that England feared the return to Catholicism as much as the Ottoman threat.

Keywords

John Mason, The Turke, Jacobean Drama, Machiavellianism, Muslim Turk, Catholic Italian

References

• CHEW, Samuel C. (1965). The Crescent and the Rose. New York: Octagon Books. Inc.,
• GRISWOLD, Wendy. (1986). Renaissance Revivals: City Comedy and Revenge Tragedy in the London Theatre .Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• HAMPTON, Timothy J. (1993) “Turkish Dogs, Rabelais, Erasmus, and the Rhetorics of Alterity”. Representations 41 (Winter), 58-62.
• HUNTER, G.K. (1978). Dramatic Identities and Cultural Tradition: Studies in Shakespeare and his Contemporaries. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.
• KAHN, Victoria (1994). Machiavellian Rhetoric: From the Counter Reformation to Milton. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• KNOLLES, Richard. The Generall Historie of the Turkes, from the first beginning of that Nation to the rising of the Othoman Familie: with all the notable expedition of the Christian Princes against them. Together with the Lives and Conquests of the Othoman Kings and Emperours. London: printed by Adam Islip, 1603; reprinted 1638.
• KNUTSON, Roslyn L. (1996). “Elizabethan Documents, and the Market for Foreign History Plays”. English Literary Renaissance 26 (Winter), 75-110.
• MACHIAVELLI, Niccolo. (1995). The Prince. Translated and Edited by George Bull. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
• MARLOWE, Christopher. (1981) Tamburlaine the Great. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• __________, (1969;1980). The Jew of Malta. In Christopher Marlowe: The Complete Plays. Ed. With Int. by J. B. Steane. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd. pp.341-431.
• MASON, John. (1913). The Turke. Ed. by Joseph Q. Adams. Materialienzur Kunde des alteren Englischen Dramas, XXXVII.Louvain.
• MIDDLETON, Thomas and Thomas DEKKER.(2007). Blurt, Master-Constable. Oxford: Benediction Classics.
• SAID, W. Edward.1977 Orientalism. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1977.
• ŞENLEN GÜVENÇ, Sıla (2009).Words as Swords: Verbal Violence as a Construction of Authority in Renaissanceand Contemporary English Drama. Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag.
• ŞENLEN, Sıla. (1999)The Civil Infidels’: Representation of theTurks in Renaissance Drama. M.A Dissertation. University College Dublin.
• SHAKESPEARE, William. (1914). “Henry VI, Part 3”.The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Ed. W. J. Craig. London: Pordes. pp.609-644.
• ______________, (2006). King Richard III.Ed. Anthony Hammond.London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
• ______________, (1964). King Lear. Ed. Eric A. McCann. Toronto: Academic Press.
• ______________, (1996). Hamlet.Ed. T.J.B. Spencer. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
• WADSWORTH, Frank. (1953). “The Relationship of Lust’s Dominion and John Mason’s The Turke”. English Literary History 20. pp.194-200.