Малтийският евреин

by Christopher Marlowe, Евгения Панчева (Translator)

За пръв път на български език! Излязла изпод перото на най-гениалния Шекспиров съвременник Кристофър Марлоу, драмата „Малтийският евреин” ни въвлича във властовите игри и етническите и религиозни противоборства на ренесансова Европа. Предшественик на Шекспировия Шайлок, евреинът с многозначителното име Варава не само се оказва във вихъра на тези конфликти, но и се опитва да ги манипулира с типичната за ренесансовия свръхчовек жажда за власт. В меркантилния свят на ренесансова Малта обаче такъв стремеж неизбежно се движи по ръба на комичното. Това, заедно с гротескно преувеличената жестокост на героя, превръща потенциалната трагедия в един, по думите на Т.С.Елиът, „див фарс”. Търговецът от мините на Индия борави със метал с висок карат. И мавърът от своите скали съкровищата сбира без надзор и трупа перлите като чакъл, и ги продава според тежестта – чували със опали и сапфир, топази, хиацинти, изумруд, рубини скъпи, бляскав диамант и всякакви брилянти със цена такава, че най-дребният от тях би заплатил и откупа дори на някой славен цар, попаднал в плен. Със ей такава стока съм богат. И мисля си, разумният човек така би водил своите дела и трупайки имане, би събрал безчет богатства в стаичка една.

Genres: Plays, Classics, Drama, Fiction, Theatre, School, 16th Century

179 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1589

About the author

Christopher "Kit" Marlowe (baptised 26 February 1564) was an English dramatist, poet and translator of the Elizabethan era. The foremost Elizabethan tragedian next to William Shakespeare, he is known for his magnificent blank verse, his overreaching protagonists, and his own mysterious and untimely death.

The author's Wikipedia page.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a profoundly subversive black comedy which shows its contempt for the practitioners of each of the three major religions, all of whom Marlowe sees as being motivated by nothing save avarice and (occasionally) lust.

Barabas the Jew of Malta--aided by his psychopathic Muslim slave Ithamore--plots the destruction of both Christians and Muslims and eventually falls into a boiling cauldron he has prepared for his remaining enemies, but not before contriving half-a-dozen murders, poisoning an entire community of nuns, and blowing up a Turkish occupying army quartered in a confiscated monastery.

Compared to Barabas and the other charming denizens of his world, Machiavelli--who delivers the play's prologue--is probably the most sympathetic character. "The Jew" is not to everyone's taste, but it is filled with great blank verse, great theatre, and great fun.

[Sasha · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you haven't read Marlowe, I recommend him. He's more lurid and over the top than Shakespeare, and nowhere near as subtle - well, not subtle at all, if we're being honest - and he's not as good, but then it's a little uncool to compare anyone to Shakespeare. He is good.

Sucks to be this guy, really. He was very popular in his time, and then along came Shakespeare and whammo, he's a footnote. It's not Marlowe's fault he was the guy right before The Guy.

Anyway, if you want to see how the two compare, a perfect way to do it is to read this play and then The Merchant of Venice, which is a retelling of the same story. Merchant gets you inside Shylock's head, making you sympathize with him, trying to get you to understand how he ends up acting the way he does (more or less). This play? Not so much. Here, Barabas the Jew is just a cackling, scheming villain. No character development whatsoever: just dastardly deeds all the way.

And let's not dodge the elephant: it is terribly anti-Semitic. Merchant of Venice is fairly anti-Semitic, but it does show you how unjust the world was for a Jew of the time. Jew of Malta is not as interested in that. So brace yourself, there. Or don't read this play at all; I wouldn't blame you.

But you do root for both Barabas and Shylock, because they're both super fun. They capture your interest. And Barabas, with his infernal machines and traps and poisons, is a highly entertaining villain.

So what you'll get here is, from Shakespeare, a nuanced look at how society (and general villainy) conspire to produce a villain, and from Marlowe, woo! Murder! Merchant of Venice is better; Jew of Malta is...well, I'm not sure I can say it's more fun. But it's pretty fun.

[BJ Lillis · Rating 4 out of 5]

First, this play is absolutely, horrifically antisemitic by any and all standards. That it is also rabidly anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim does not change that. Still—just as invoking Islam, in Tamburlaine, allowed Marlowe to go after self-interested believers everywhere, so The Jew of Malta leaves the impression that no less than God himself with all his followers is enemy number one.

The first two acts present an anti-hero who transcends, perhaps, to a degree, the stereotypes invoked. By Act 3—with the play’s first instance of mass murder—stereotype is reduced to caricature, and one begins to suspect that the point of the violence is not to test or illuminate character, but rather the point of character, to the extent Marlowe bothers with it at all, is simply to make the violence slap harder. Still, despite ourselves—something in Marlowe’s poetry, perhaps, or maybe just modernity imposing itself on an alien cultural world—we root for evil, we root for Barabas. Then again, it’s not like there’s anyone good on this stage—what choice do we have?

[Manny]

Thou hast committed -
Fornication: but that was in another country,
And besides, the wench is dead.

[Jonfaith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Love me little, love me long; let music
rumble,
Whilst I in thy incony lap do tumble.

I blame Kalliope for this detour. It was her lengthy survey of Kit's bio that led me here. Maybe Derek Jarman gave a deserved shove as well. Bugger. I watched Jubilee last night. It shocked me and left me slightly listing. Perhaps that was simply Adam Ant. Later that night I crept upstairs and fetched this play before slipping into slumber. I awoke to a world gone white. It has snowed like mad all day. My wife and I have to leave shortly, business calls and we will brave the belabored roads north. It was thus a treat to read this tale, one so low, abject and vile. I loved it. Put me in the camp of blasphemy, if that summons malice to my door, then so be it. By the way, incony is slang for mysterious lady parts.

[David Sarkies · Rating 5 out of 5]

A complex play of love, revenge, and murder
1 February 2014

For a long time I felt that Kit Marlowe's best play was The Tragical History of Doctor Faust, and though I had read this play previously, it had not stuck in my head in the same way that Doctor Faust did. I suspect it is because the last time that I read this collection of plays I had read them all on one go (that is reading the plays one after the other without reading something different in between) and because I had been so blown away by Doctor Faust I ended up not paying all that much attention to the other plays in the book. This time around I have come to appreciate the brilliance that is The Jew of Malta.

It has been suggested that this play inspired The Merchant of Venice, however the Merchant of Venice is more of a comedy and you also find that Shylock does not attract as much sympathy as does Barrabas. Mind you, by the end of this play Barrabas does not attract as much sympathy as he does at the beginning of the play, but that is because, in the end, he deserves his fate (namely by being thrown into a cauldron of hot oil, a fate that he had initially set aside for another). The Jew of Malta a play of political intrigue and machiavellian manipulation as influential Maltese struggle against each other to try to come out of top. In fact, to add emphasis to the Mmchiavellian nature of the play, Marlow actually opens with an introduction of a character named Machiavell (no doubt referring to the Machievelli of a similar name).

The basic plot (if one can actually call this plot basic because the other three Marlowe plays that I have commented on so far have pretty straight forward plots, though some very interesting characters, at least in the case of Doctor Faust) is that the Turks lay siege to the island kingdom of Malta and demand a tribute, to which the governor responds by confiscating property and using it to pay the tribute. Barabas, the Jew of the tale, objects to this acquisition of his land and in response the governor decides to take all of his wealth and gives his house to the church. Fortunately for Barrabas, he has some wealth secreted away and he arranges a ploy where he convinces his daughter to pretend to become a nun so that she might sneak into the house and take the money.

Not only does this play have political intrigue, but is also has a love triangle, one that Barrabas arranges. He convinces the son of the governor to pursue his daughter, while another boy is also attempting to court her. In this Machiavellian world of sex and intrigue, the two suitors end up coming to blows and killing each other in a duel, though Barrabas manages to keep his hands clean of the killings by using a Turkish slave that he had acquired to do his dirty work. Obviously the governor is out for blood, but Barrabas manages to get him removed from his post, and through further political maneuvering, gets himself appointed. Obviously, now that he is effectively at the top of his career, things begin to unwind (as if they hadn't already due to all of his wealth being confiscated) and when he attempts to enact his final plot to get rid of the last of his enemies, he suddenly finds that the tables have been turned and he, instead, finds himself thrown into the cauldron of boiling oil.

If there is a major theme with this play and that is the theme of religious conflict, and Marlowe demonstrates his ability to create a truly complex story through the use of not just conflict between two parties, but three – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. At this point in history there was not much understanding of other religions (they were all heresy), and unlike today where we have people trying to understand the beliefs of others, in the 16th century it seemed to be much more as treating the members of other religions as aliens (though in many cases that conflict still very much exists today between members of different religions – I do not think the word opposing is proper in this context). However, what we do have are two religions with established territory and one religion without a territory, that is the Jew. For the last two thousand years, as we all understand, the Jews were drifting around other people's lands, trying their best to create a comfortable life for themselves, and in many cases quite successfully. However, we find that for much of the time they were subject to abuse, such as the pomgroms during the crusades, and the fact that all Jews were expelled from England in the 12th century, and though they were later allowed back in, it was only on the condition that they convert to Christianity. In Merchant of Venice, while not in the play, it was certainly in the background, the Jews were forced into the Ghetto (a section of Venice that was effectively a gaol for people whose only crime was being a Jew) and what we see here in this play is that when the King of Malta is forced to give tribute to the Turks, he turns to the section of society that had the least amount of rights form which to get that tribute: the Jews.

Finally I want to say a little about Malta, not that I know all that much about the place, except that it is a small island in the middle of the Mediterranean whose language is connected to Arabic, which surprised me. I found that out through, of all places, Wikipedia (the place where I get all of my information these days). I have known a few Maltese people in my time, but I suspect, as is evident in this play, it was for a long time a domain of Islam. This is not surprising because Sicily was a Muslim domain for much of early European history, and after that it became a Norman State, which actually surprised me because it is as far from Normandy as one could expect (I didn't learn that from Wikipedia, I learnt it from a documentary on the Normans). However, I always thought that the Maltese were more connected with the Italians, considering that the Maltese that I have known looked a lot like Italians that I know (which is probably because most of the Italians that I know come from Southern Italy, where pretty much most of the Italians that emigrated to Australia and America come from). Well, I guess one learns something different every day.

[Ivana Books Are Magic · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is Jew of Malta the real villain of this play? Perhaps it is the religious prejudice itself that is the main villain. It is not a coincidence that this plays opens with an obvious wrong being done to Barabas. If you look at it closely, there really aren't any positive characters in this play. In this hate triangle featuring Jews, Catholics and Muslims, we can see that they all use the religion as an excuse to commit atrocities. Those few characters that may be deemed good are also incredibly naive, so naive they don't stand a chance. Needless to say, these 'good' characters do not end well. There are no admirable heroes or heroines in this one!

This not only indicates that it doesn't pay off to be good, but also suggests that it will prove fatal. Indeed, who really prospers in The Jew of Malta? Nobody! Every character suffers terrible losses, one way or another. By the end of the play, all of them (including us the readers) get a really dim view of the world. The whole play is incredibly violent, with deaths (never accidental) happening on and off stage. The constant scheming and manipulations show us the worst of human nature. Despite of that, the play is often quite funny- in a very dark way. Not surprisingly, The Jew of Malta is often described as a dark comedy.

If this play is antisemitic, it is also anticatholic and antislamic? Observing this play more carefully, you'll see that the author portrays both the Catholics and the Muslims in an extremely bad light. In particular, the catholic clergy is heavily criticized. There are many open references to sexual relations between nuns and priests/friars, making it seem like it was something obvious and to taken to grated, together with their ever present religious hypocrisy. The Catholics are portrayed as thieves and money hungry people, in many ways worse than Jews or Muslims.

If there was anyone who was more feared and hated than Jews in Elizabethan England, it was the Catholics. Barabas is a villain but only of its kind. There is no suggestion that other Jews are anything like him. In fact, the only other prominent Jewish character, his daughter Abigail undergoes a spiritual change and dies a martyr death. Moreover, the Muslims are portrayed negatively. The only exception being the young Turk prince who gives an impression of honour. However, that doesn't end good for him. Indeed, religion seems to be the main villain in The Jew Malta as it provides justification for immoral acts of characters. All of them seem to think that one can do whatever he wants to an 'infidel', forgetting that from the perspective of other, they are the 'infidels'.

Barabas is refreshing in the sense that he is open about his motives and doesn't hide behind any religion. Is there anything in the play to make us think that Barabas cares about Judaism or that his actions might be reflected by his interpretation of his own religion? I don't think so. Barabas does show some pride in being a Jew, but that might be just his pride in himself for really he cares only about money and power. For example, Barabas does encourage his Turkish slave in his hate towards the Christians, but only to serve his means better. In reality he doesn't really think much of them- to him they are just objects to be used.

Barabas is a cruel man, but one that is free from religious hypocrisy. However, Barabas is so monstrous in his actions that the comparison with Machiavelli type of figure stops to make sense. A Machiavellian man would stop at nothing to ensure power, but wouldn't kill people for the joy of killing. Barabas' thirst for blood often defies common sense because with unnecessary murders, he really puts himself in danger. We know that there were fierce and exaggerated stereotypes surrounding Jews in England of that time. Was Marlowe being satirical by exaggerating these stereotypes? Was Marlowe giving his audience what they asked for or was he trying to cancel the stereotypes with his satire?

To understand this play, one needs to understand the depth of antisemitism in England and Europe of the time. Taking the money from the Jews was common practice in most European countries- for literally centuries. European rulers invited Jews to Europe to serve as bankers at some point and then continued to rob them blind whenever it suited them, exploiting their often unresolved legal status. A Jew was deemed almost not quite a human being. I wonder what people of that time really thought of that. In a country that was as fiercely proud of the rule of law as England was, how did people see its obvious misuse in the case of Jews? There had to be some reasons made. The collective guilt must have turned into a collective phobia and people started to believe the most wild tales of prejudice.

It is frustrating to see people not understanding the context of the time in which this play was written or failing to understand that the writer was probably satirical when he made Barabas the Jew the main villain of this play. Had Marlowe have been really intent on creating Barabas for antisemitic reasons, he would have probably made it a bit less obvious. He would have picked on other Jews, not just one. Besides, wasn't Marlowe an atheist? If he had something against the Jews, why did he made fun of all religions in this play? In fact, his critique of Catholics is very precise and the Muslims don't fare any better. Maybe I have spoken too much about the cultural/ historical context of this play and not enough about my experience of it. However, it is only because I believe that the historical context is so important for understanding it. I'm not saying that is how Elizabethan audience saw it, though. The irony of this play was possibly lost on most of them. Nevertheless, there is more to this play than it meets the eye. If you ask me, Christopher Marlowe is not given enough credit these days. Jew of Malta is an incredibly dark play, but brilliant in its own way. I read it in a heartbeat. Reading it was at times uncomfortable, but for the most part the play does read easily and captures the attention fully. It is also wonderfully funny at times. I really liked it.

[Andrei Tamaş · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terminând cartea, am în minte apariţia sâmburelui scepticismului (de orice natură ar fi el, dar aici e vorba de credinţa religioasă). Fiind a doua piesă scrisă de Marlowe pe care o citesc -"Doctor Faustus", la fel ca romanul omonim al lui Thomas Mann ori ca "Faustul" lui Goethe, rămânând în seria capodoperelor circumscrise orizontului lăcomiei de cunoaştere-, am simţit ochiul viclean al scriitorului. În zilele noastre, libera exprimare este literă de lege, în schimb în vremurile Evului Mediu, Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593) nu avea acest drept din pricina monstruoasei Inchiziţii (care, de altfel, i-a adus şi sfârşitul, sub acuzaţia -justă sau nu- că era ateu). În opera acestui martir, care în opinia mea este aproape egal cu Shakespeare, se disting deci nişte elemente nu ateiste, ci mai degrabă caracterizate printr-un pluriperspectivism. Tocmai acest pluriperspectivism, spre deosebire de alte opere clasice, caracterizate de un singur model etic/religios, naşte germenele scepticismului. Ei!, dacă ne gândim un strop şi raportăm opera la perioada în care a fost scrisă, putem conchide fără prea multă şovăială că ea este un catalizator în drumul libertăţii, care a fost îngreunat de acel obstacol reprezentat de instituţia Inchiziţiei.
Pe de altă parte, privită din perspectiva prezentului şi a viitorului deopotrivă, piesa spune povestea lui Barabas, un evreu bogat din Malta medievală. Pentru ideea operei în sine, semnificativ este prologul rostit de Machiavel(i). Mai precis, "Evreul din Malta" este o cale inedită de a ilustra consecinţele dezastroase ale aplicării exclusiviste a maximei machiavelice conform căreia "scopul scuză mijloacele"...

Andrei Tamaş,
7 iunie 2016

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why, is not this    

A kingly kind of trade, to purchase towns    

By treachery, and sell 'em by deceit?    

Now tell me, worldlings, underneath the sun

If greater falsehood ever has been done?

Christians, Turks and a Jew behaving very badly. Marlowe's hyperbole 450 years ago reads like today's headlines.

[Mary ♥]

Frankly I have no idea how to rate this, this is one of the weirdest things I have ever read. Marlowe sure had some crazy plots in mind.

[Tristram Shandy · Rating 1 out of 5]

”Ay, daughter, for religion / Hides many mischiefs from suspicion.”

Christopher Marlowe’s ferocious play The Jew of Malta, which was written around 1589 and 1590, is generally said to have influenced Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, but I must say that having the latter play at the back of my mind while reading Marlowe’s revenge tragedy, my admiration for the Malta play was, on the whole, rather dampened for there are worlds between these two plays. But maybe, it is not quite fair, anyway, to compare Marlowe and Shakespeare since the latter was simply the epitome of the master-playwright even though some of Shakespeare’s own plays did fizzle.

Whereas in The Merchant of Venice we have, in Shylock, a tragic character, who allows himself to indulge in his desire for vengeance on a member of Christian society that has repeatedly wronged and humiliated him, only to find that those Christians have a way of turning their laws against him, Marlowe, in The Jew of Malta offers us, in Barabas, an inveterate villain, quite a caricature at that, who rushes from one spectacular crime to another, poisoning a whole nunnery to get even with his daughter, who converted to Christianity, inveigling the Governor’s son into a lethal duel with another youth, helping the Turks invade Malta and later trying to betray them, in turn, to the Christians. It may be argued that his being dispossessed of all his goods by the hypocritical Governor Ferneze, who wants to pay the tribute due to the Turks with the money of the Maltese Jews, not touching the wealth of the Christians, starts his private revenge spree against virtually anyone around him and that he therefore is depicted as the victim of injustice and prejudice but unlike Shylock, Barabas is no figure to evoke sympathy for he revels too wickedly in the evil he plots and commits, and then there is a highly exuberant passage like this, where he compares his own penchant to treason and crime with his newly-found servant Ithamore’s inclinations to vice:

”As for myself, I walk abroad o' nights,
And kill sick people groaning under walls:
Sometimes I go about and poison wells;
And now and then, to cherish Christian thieves,
I am content to lose some of my crowns,
That I may, walking in my gallery,
See 'em go pinion'd along by my door.
Being young, I studied physic, and began
To practice first upon the Italian;
There I enrich'd the priests with burials,
And always kept the sexton's arms in ure 80
With digging graves and ringing dead men's knells:
And, after that, was I an engineer,
And in the wars 'twixt France and Germany,
Under pretence of helping Charles the Fifth,
Slew friend and enemy with my stratagems:
Then, after that, was I an usurer,
And with extorting, cozening, forfeiting,
And tricks belonging unto brokery,
I fill'd the gaols with bankrupts in a year,
And with young orphans planted hospitals;
And every moon made some or other mad,
And now and then one hang himself for grief,
Pinning upon his breast a long great scroll
How I with interest tormented him.
But mark how I am blest for plaguing them;—
I have as much coin as will buy the town.
But tell me now, how hast thou spent thy time?”

Frankly speaking, this is not only anti-Semitic to the core, since it includes virtually any anti-Jewish stereotype of the time, its only potentially redeeming quality being that it is so blown out of all proportion that one may deem it a satire on anti-Jewish stereotypes afloat at those times, but it also makes it impossible for the audience to establish any link of sympathy with Barabas, of seeing him as a real human being.

In fact, I could not help thinking that the major intention of Marlowe’s here was to provoke his contemporaries – by presenting all religions as hardly more than an excuse for the execution of villainy. With the possible exception of Barabas’s daughter Abigail, there is no single character in the whole play whose actions are not motivated by selfishness and even though Marlowe must have chuckled up his sleeve by having Macchiavelli introduce his play with a little cynical prologue, a calculated affront, nothing could be farther from Macchiavelli than the actions of most of the characters in the play, especially those of Barabas and Ithamore, in that while for the abhorred Italian breach of promise, dissimulation and ruthlessness were means to an end, Barabas and Ithamore wallow in them for their own sake, and to the actual detriment of their ends. The only person to adopt Macchiavellian principles is probably Ferneze, the Governor of Malta, which is probably why he will survive in the end.

The Jew of Malta was the first Marlowe play I actually read, and while it might be breath-taking to see it staged, I definitely found it grossly inferior to Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice in that it does not give us any insight into human nature – apart from the rather superficial “Every man fend for himself!” –, and in that it even seems to further anti-Semitic stereotypes, or at least to be making use of them in order to entertain its audience. The play’s desire to provoke at all costs, its half-baked use of Macchiavelli being one of its strategies to do so, seemed rather puerile to me, and its language was at no moment as overwhelming as that of the Bard.

All in all, the calculated, gore-laden provocations and the overall shallowness of the play made me wonder whether Marlowe really had anything worthwhile to say to his day and age or whether he was not rather an Elizabethan Tarantino, doomed to be eclipsed by any real artist coming their way.

[Jesús De la Jara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pobre Barrabás, sólo quería ser rico y tener mucho dinero aglomerado, ¿qué culpa tuvo él que vengan los turcos a amenazar la Isla de Malta y él tenga que pagar los platos rotos?
Esta obra de Marlowe me sorprendió muchísimo porque dado el tema que no me pareció tan "importante" como "Dido", "La masacre de París" o "Doctor Fausto", la creación del personaje de Barrabás, el judío de Malta, es muy compleja y bien lograda. Uno se da cuenta a medida que avanza la obra la crueldad e hipocresía que encierra este personaje que poco a poco digamos se va descubriendo ante nuestros ojos.
Ferneze, el gobernador de Malta, aparentemente fue un poco duro con Barrabás al quitarle su fortuna por la causa ya dicha pero la venganza de Barrabás, un personaje tan avaro, traerá funestas consecuencias. No mide medios ni artimañas (muy ingeniosas por cierto) e involucra a su propia hija Abigail, a los mozos Ludovico y Matías, monjes y un largo etcétera.
Nada parece detener a este judío en su empeño de vengarse y tratar de salir de la mala situación en el que es puesto. Excelente también las escenas de guerras entre la Isla de Malta y la facción turca comandada por Calimad.
El final me sorprendió a pesar de todo por un giro inesperado y en verdad toda la pieza me pareció muy buena, mucho suspenso, mucha intriga y algunos rasgos perversos típicos de Marlowe.

[Phrodrick slowed his growing backlog · Rating 2 out of 5]

Among the comments late in the introductory notes are two important thoughts.
1 That there may be no original manuscripts of Marlowe’s plays,
2. The Jew of Malta might be a farce rather than a tragedy.

This edition The Dover Thrift Edition) of Christopher Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta is sufficiently over wrought to be farcical, but too much of the language is flat and dull. The net result lacks enough life to sustain a laugh. Scenes transition poorly and plot development is so … whatever is the opposite of seamless that this could easily be chopped together from many earlier versions with changes made by many writers looking to serve many audiences.

I came to this play hoping to see an artist who was the mentor to and possible superior of William Shakespeare. Very little of the dialogue ever achieves the beauty of the Bard.

The foot notes asked us to consider the following Marlowe line against the Shakespeare version:
“But stay what light shines yonder in the East
The loadstar of my life, If Abigail.

First the speaker is Abigail’s father, and not her lover.
“if Abigail” reads like a transcription error from some earlier draft.
Those are minor problems.
The entire first line is leaden and unhappy.
And finally “Lodestar” sounds too much like mill stone or concrete overshoes, just not anything to suggest that the daughter is the light or delight of her father’s soul,
Consider what Shakespeare does with the line I do not doubt he stole:

“But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun. “

‘Lo’ rather than ‘stay’, surprise rather than a command to stop. In the original ‘Yonder’ leaps out as something that would fit better in a bad country western song. The later use fits in naturally and sounds softer in the ear. Juliet is light, lighting Romeo’s life and warming his heart. The comparison is clearly one an inspired lover might invent, not some creepy old man talking about his daughter.

Numerous footnotes take the place of missing stage directions. Scene shifts are frequently lost or obviously missing. Plot development seem layered on rather than deliberately designed in. Ultimately this is a mess and unpleasant to read. The script at barely 59 pages was a struggle to finish.

I refuse to believe that this edition is what made Christopher Marlowe’s reputation. Over 40 years ago I read The Tragical History of Doctor FaustusThe Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus. Perhaps it is time I revisited it if only to give the man with Kit’s reputation a chance to be better represented.

[Christopher (Donut) · Rating 4 out of 5]

First of all, yes, Marlowe was first. Marlowe was not LIKE Shakespeare, but he made Shakespeare possible.

And if the term "farce" is a little academic and still doesn't help the reader appreciate this play, think "sit-com." Think about a movie like this:



FIRST JEW. A fleet of warlike galleys, Barabas,
Are come from Turkey, and lie in our road: {=harbor}
And they this day sit in the council-house
To entertain them and their embassy.
BARABAS. Why, let 'em come, so they come not to war;
Or let 'em war, so we be conquerors.—
Nay, let 'em combat, conquer, and kill all,
So they spare me, my daughter, and my wealth. [Aside.]

{...}

Death seizeth on my heart: ah, gentle friar,
Convert my father that he may be sav'd,
And witness that I die a Christian! [Dies.]

FRIAR BARNARDINE. Ay, and a virgin too; that grieves me most.

The fact is, that nearly 400 years before "Notes on Camp," Marlowe was camp.
And Barabas did not inspire the character of Shylock so much as Shakespeare's most Marlovian villain, Richard III:

Know, Calymath, I aim'd thy overthrow:
And, had I but escap'd this stratagem,
I would have brought confusion on you all,
Damn'd Christian dogs, and Turkish infidels!
But now begins the extremity of heat
To pinch me with intolerable pangs:
Die, life! fly, soul! tongue, curse thy fill, and die! [Dies.]

[Libby · Rating 4 out of 5]

The language is bombastic, passionate and orotund. The plot is full of deceit, betrayal and revenge. It reflects English suspicions and prejudices. Anti-semitic fear and loathing are epitomized in Barabbas, the Jew of the title. The plot also reveals the ancient distrust of the English for those of Mediterranean origin. This play takes 21st century correctness and stomps that sucker flat. So how can a modern reader feel the love for this one? ( I have similar ambiguities about Richard III, too,) Sooooo------let us try to separate our modern sensibilities from our play-going selves and listen to the lines. (Oh the lines!) Marlowe is famous for the almost hypnotic rhythms of his speeches, and no less than Shakespeare was accused of having pilfered "Marlowe's mighty Line." No one anywhere, any time has ever equaled the majestic flow of the Elizabethan theater's language. No poet, no playwright has ever surpassed it. And Marlowe, with all his many flaws, gave us a fabulous river of words. This play was fantastically popular in its day. It set off a popular fever for "revenge tragedies" which lasted a decade on the London stages. (A probable result of its money-making capacity was Will Shakespeare's Hamlet.)Marlowe flung all of the bitterness, hurt and longing for justification that corrode men's hearts out onto the stage and the crowd went wild. Listen with your heart and not your brain and you'll love this just like they did then.

[Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a play that grabs your attention immediately, but unfortunately peters out a bit at the end. The first half of the work, though lacking the sheer poetic beauty of Tamburlaine or Dr. Faustus, is exciting reading and, I would imagine, even better viewing. Few books hook me immediately like this one.

I must admit I picked it up with some trepidation. Was it a racist rant? Well, it certainly showcases every Jewish stereotype known to Elizabethan England, and maybe adds some new ones. But it is hardly done to the advantage of the Christians in the play.

Barabbas is presented as an unjustly persecuted man, attacked by avaricious, rapacious Christians. It makes one wonder what Marlowe was thinking or how he could get away with such distasteful portrayals of Christian leaders. I suppose it was because they were all Catholics, though I’m not sure that word even appears on the play. Elizabethans apparently disliked Catholics more than Jews.

This is a great play and, like all the Revels Plays, a wonderful edition with an excellent introduction and footnotes that really help the reader understand the context of the play. If you want to read a 16th/17th century play, I highly recommend the Revels editions.

[Roman Clodia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Marlowe's dark and savage play of Machiavellian cunning and guile, written over by issues of race and early capitalism.

Barabas, the titular Jew, is one of Marlowe's great 'over-reachers' and his vibrant wickedness combined with his frequent asides that make the audience complicit in his plots work against the stereotypes of the Jewish outsider, especially in a world where no race or religion has moral probity or integrity. The Christian governor steals Jewish money, plots with the Spanish to overthrow the Turks, then does a deal with the Turks before massacring them all... The Spanish ships are loaded with slaves, and this trading in flesh makes Barabas' own trade in gold, silks and jewels positively benign.

Amidst all the mayhem, it's Barabas who pulls the strings with his flamboyant disguises, his playing at being dead, his poisoning an entire nunnery with soup, and his final outrageous death in a bubbling cauldron and so is, arguably, the closest figure to the playwright himself.

An influence on Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, this may not have the grandiloquence of Tamburlaine or the spooky aura of Dr Faustus, but it demonstrates Marlowe's range and diversity of writing styles and is very horribly funny.

[majoringinliterature · Rating 5 out of 5]

Renaissance drama certainly packs a punch. And Christopher Marlowe's The Jew of Malta is no exception. If you're ready for scheming, thieving, poisoning, blackmail, more poisoning, and Death By Cauldron, then you've certainly come to the right place. It's hardly surprising that this play was so popular with the Elizabethans - and it's amazing that Marlowe managed to stuff so much murder and mayhem into just one play.

The Jew of Malta, unsurprisingly, is set on the tiny Mediterranean island, which is being besieged by Turkish troops. The slippery governor of the island decides that in order to pay a tribute demanded by the Turks, he will take the money of Malta's wealthiest citizen, a Jewish merchant called Barabas. As you can probably imagine, Barabas doesn't take too kindly to being robbed blind, and sets out to take his revenge on the unscrupulous Christians. With the help of a Turkish slave called Ithamore, Barabas does any number of nasty things, including poisoning an entire nunnery (including his own daughter, Abigail), and tricking his daughter's suitors into killing one another. As might be expected, the whole situation quickly deteriorates, and double-crossings and murders ensue by the bucketload.

Marlowe's play is hugely entertaining, and not just because Barabas' revenges, despite their cruelty, are fabulously theatrical and clever (at one point there's a thing with him dressed as a Frenchman and a poisoned flower, but I won't spoil the whole thing). And although the play contains many contemporary stereotypes about Jews, Barabas refuses to be neatly categorised as simply the 'scheming Jew'. Betrayed by the state he calls home, and by his family (his daughter converts to Christianity; this is before Barabas poisons her, of course), there is scope for audiences to sympathise with this at times confusing character. In teaming up with Ithamore, his Turkish slave, Barabas' character may be expressing Elizabethan anxieties about cultural outsiders, and the fact that a shared sense of alienation may inspire them to rise up against the dominant culture.

Sadly, Ithamore quickly turns into a stereotypical villain; he double-crosses his master, teaming up with a prostitute and her pimp to blackmail Barabas. Surprisingly, however, the invading Turks, led by Selim-Calymath, bear little resemblance to Ithamore; in fact, they appear to be the only people in the entire play who adhere to common law and order. Calymath is well-spoken, even courtly, and provides a contrast to the devious and unlikeable Farneze, the governor of Malta. This characterisation is quite unusual, given that the Ottoman Empire was considered a very powerful force in the Eastern Mediterranean at this time, and that the real-life siege of Malta in 1565 reawakened England to the danger the Ottomans could present if they continued to conquer lands closer and closer to the British Isles.

Finally, the characterisation of Abigail, Barabas' daughter, is quite interesting. Her story follows the plot of many medieval romances, where 'exotic' Eastern women fall in love with Christian men. Throughout the play, Abigail is upheld as a symbol of purity, and her conversion to Christianity indulges a common European fantasy of conversion, whereby the exotic foreign woman is 'tamed', neutralising any threat she might have posed with her 'otherness'. In this process, she willingly abandons her father, and his brutal response to the news might well have added to the stereotyping apparent throughout the play.

But Abigail's death also takes place at the same time as the poisoning of an entire nunnery, a scene which is both terribly disturbing and a little bit funny (or was that just me?). This blending of violence, humour, and a constant questioning of types and stereotypes is part of what makes this play so compelling. Like Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice (which was inspired by, and at times borrows heavily from, Marlowe's play*), the play offers actors and viewers the chance to sympathise with characters who are socially marginalised and often abused. The large number of recent productions suggests that apart from being hugely entertaining, The Jew of Malta offers us fascinating material with which to consider the position of cultural outsiders in society, both in Elizabethan England and today.

Rating: 4.5 Stars

*Just one example that I picked up on: Barabas' speech, "O my girl / My gold, my fortune, my felicity … / O girl! O gold! O beauty! O my bliss!" (II: i ll. 48-55) is echoed in the famous lines Shylock is reported to have cried out in the streets of Venice: "'My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter! / Fled with a Christian! O my Christian ducats!'" (The Merchant of Venice, II: viii ll. 15-16).

Originally posted on Majoring in Literature.

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was meaning to read Marlowe's 'The Jew of Malta' for a long time now. Today, I have finally read the play. Marlowe is one of my favourite playwrights, and I believe the world owes a huge debt to this genius, including, most probably, Shakespeare the Great himself.

The Jews first arrived in Malta after the Roman Titus ransacked the Temple of Jerusalem in 70AD. One can still find ancient Jewish catacombs scattered across Malta. The 'Menorah' is a prominent feature in such sites. At first, the Jews and the Maltese lived as two brothers would. They were allowed to open their own markets and synagogues. They even had their own abattoir! The Jews were also synonymous with education and economic prosperity. Malta's doctors and pharmacists were Jewish. However, by 1492/1496 they were exiled based on a decree sent by the King of Spain, a decision which the Maltese considered to be negative. For the Jews, by then, had established themselves as an integral part of Malta's economy and government. With their 'repossessed' money, the Maltese government then repaired Fort St Angelo.

Barabas, 'who smiles to see how full his bags are cramm'd', is also put into a difficult position by Ferneze, Malta's governor. The latter believes that Barabas ought to pay his fair share to finance Malta's security. However, after a defiant struggle, Barabas manages to lose everything (or so he makes it seem), even though Ferneze would have been pleased by half of Barabas' wealth at first. 'The Jew of Malta' is basically a tragedy concerning the numerous schemes Barabas gets himself into to secure revenge on those 'Christian dogs' for daring to touch his everything, his gold, schemes which ultimately backfire onto Barabas himself.

Barabas is the archetype of the typical Machiavellian character. In many aspects he is similar to Iago. His faith, even his only daughter, fair Abigail, mean nothing to him. At one point, he compares her to Agamemnon's Iphigenia. All those who have the faintest idea of Greek mythology know that Agamemnon used Iphigenia as a sacrifice in his own interests. Poor Abigail is disposed of in a similar manner. In fact, this play is so tragic that it borders on the ridiculous at times, which some argue is deliberate since it is similar to black comedy in style. But what is really tragic in 'The Jew of Malta' is Barabas' reluctance to forgive his 'enemy', a central revolutionary Catholic concept, and which basically proves all of the prejudices and stereotypes against Jews correct in this case. This might explain why the Jews never got on well with their neighbours (who are not Jewish at least), another central Catholic concept.

However, one does not help but feeling a lot of symapathy for Barabas, at least in the first part of the play. Abigail's loyalty and love for him is admirable, and unfortunately undeserved, as Barabas deceives and betrays her as well (Barabas is a well-known figure in the New Testament, who represents the old belligerent mentality). His hate, or at least his vindictive belligerence, makes him blind to how alone he really is, just like modern day Israel. In fact, yesterday I have watched a live coverage of the current Israeli prime minister, who commented that Israel will always punish those who oppose it or attack it in any way. On a political basis, fair enough. But on a moral basis? Not that I have anything against the Jews or Israelis. My family has unique Jewish ties in Malta. However, these are my impressions after reading this play and I do believe it to be Marlowe's own implication. It is hard to pity Barabas by the fifth act. What is ironic is that Barabas could have lived happily ever after with Abigail (through his retrieved hidden wealth). But no, he saw it fit to murder half of Malta...

The Jew of Malta is not my favourite choice from Marlowe's plays, although I do admire its style and poetic magnificence, and it does have its moments of brilliance.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Jew of Malta is one of the handful of works by Christopher Marlowe, the Elizabethan playwright who dabbled in political intrigue and atheist proselytizing and died in a barfight before the age of 30. As the play opens, the Ottoman Empire is threatening the Christian island of Malta, whereupon the governor expropriates the holdings of a rich Jewish trader to buy the Turks off. Barabas, this Jew of Malta, doesn't take this too kindly and hatches various plans to destroy people close to the state and church.

Even though a great number of people meet gruesome ends in the play, The Jew of Malta is not the Elizabethan tragedy you might imagine from a knowledge of Shakespeare's works. Instead, Marlowe has written a black comedy where murderous plots become so over the top you can't help but chuckle. When Barabas buys a slave to assist him in his dirty work, the Jew of Malta boasts of his earlier successes in bankrupting the poor, poisoning wells, and baiting thieves to stuff them and put them on display in his gallery. The slave, trying to one-up his master, proudly claims to have burned entire Christian villages and cut the throats of patrons of the inn he once owned. No audience could take this seriously, and I'm sure that performed on the stage the play brought laughter to many Elizabethan theatre-goers. Barabas' end, far from being a moving tragical death, is a type of pure slapstick you can find in cartoons to this day.

In most ways, Barabas is a stock character meant to appeal to the anti-Semitism of the time, being a miser who heaps up piles of gold in his counting house when he's not involved in one murder or another. What is interesting, however, is how Marlowe uses Barabas to condemn the faults of Christians. Early in the play he claims that many of the monks and nuns of Malta have taken vows only to hide their sporting with each other. The townspeople condemn Barabas as being evil by nature compared to the good Christians of Malta, but his murderous intrigue mainly consists of not killing people himself, but rather fanning the flames of their already present moral faults until they wipe each other out.

The Jew of Malta has been highly influential on later English literature. Shakespeare may have been responding to Marlowe's choice of main character in The Merchant of Venice, and two of T. S. Eliot's poems take their epigraphs from Marlowe's play. I'd certainly recommend it for its importance in the canon, but beyond that for its entertainment value. Written in Elizabethan English, set in a very different time and place than what we know, it nonetheless succeeds as dark comedy to this day.

[Alp Turgut · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yer yer William Shakespeare’in efsanevi oyunu "Venedik Taciri"yle benzerlik taşıyan Christopher Marlowe’un meşhur eseri "Maltalı Yahudi / The Jew of Malta", dini tercihleri yüzünden devlet tarafından günah keçisi seçilerek tüm malvarlığı elinden alınan yahudi Barabas’ın korkunç intikamını konu alıyor. Shakespeare’in Shylock karakteri gibi çok yönlü bir karaktere imza atamayan Marlowe’un Barabas’ı tamamen intikam üzerine odaklanmış iki boyutlu bir karakter olarak karşımıza çıkıyor. Buna rağmen başından sonuna kadar gözünüzü ayırmadan okuduğunuz eserde Barabas’ın onuru uğruna işlediği suçlar resmen kan dondurucu. Marlowe’un en iyi eserlerinden biri olan "Maltalı Yahudi", zamanınında yaşan eşitsizlikleri çarpıcı bir şekilde ortaya koyan mutlaka okunması ve izlenmesi gereken oyunlar arasında.

19.03.2018
İstanbul, Türkiye

Alp Turgut

[Kent · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Jew of Malta is kind of like Merchant of Venice on crack. At least in terms of how conniving, how duplicitous, how despicable a stereotype can be drawn of a Jew. But I think that I'm going to think that every Marlowe play is on crack after reading Tamburlaine. Maybe Marlowe is like a Tarantino kind of playwright, where the delight comes with all extremities being given vent at once.

[Jo · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well, the flat characters are tolerable; the complete lack of subtlety is tolerable, as is the overuse of sex and violence as a device to create tension. I’m okay with all that. It’s my first Marlowe play and I’m a little underwhelmed, but chances are the man has written better plays.

What I find totally, utterly unbearable, that’s the blatant, disgusting anti-Semitism in this play. Call it a masterpiece, call it what you will - you can't rationalise the ugly truth.

[Bettie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bettie's Books

[Clara Biesel · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's not my favorite Marlowe, but just a fascinating play.

[Balloonhands · Rating 2 out of 5]

Why did I read this

[Yngvild · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Jew of Malta is one of those glorious rollicking Elizabethan dramas that make modern plays with their bickering couples look merely squalid. Christopher Marlowe does not settle for a single villain or a few venal sins, he goes for massive extortion and wholesale slaughter.

The basic setup is quite simple and maps with depressing ease to modern global politics. The Turks have demanded an impossible tribute from the Island of Malta, and the Maltese government have cravenly raised the amount by imposing a 50% - 100% wealth “tax” on their richest minority, the Jews. That is to say, the government have arbitrarily seized the entire assets of the wealthiest Jew of Malta and left him penniless and homeless. As a non-Christian, he has no citizenship and therefore no legal recourse.

It is essential for a revenge play that the initial insult is sufficiently outrageous to justify the bloodbath that we know will follow. Usually, that means killing a family member, but Marlowe has a nice variation on that by “killing” the victim’s fortune. In addition, if this were a purely conventional revenge play, Marlowe would leave the insulter’s hacked corpse on the stage at the end, whereas here the only characters to survive are ironically the Turkish and Maltese perpetrators. Somebody, after all, has to survive to haul the “bodies” off the stage at the end.

Another nice touch is that, wherever possible, perpetrators are made to kill each other. The two Christian youths who are fighting over the Jew’s daughter stab each other, and one of the priests who had intended to rape her throttles the other and is hanged for it. The Jew even sets it up so that the Maltese extortionist will assassinate the Turkish one. There is a pleasing symmetry in this, which is the whole point of a satisfying revenge.

There are some interesting plays on the theme of fathers and sons. In this world, sons inherit the sins of their fathers and suffer the consequences (if the victim can make them). So, the Turkish leader should pay for his father’s demands and the son of the Governor answer for his father’s. Even the sailors who accompany the Turkish representative and the nuns who occupy the Jew’s expropriated house are slaughtered in creative ways (offstage). By my count, at least one victim is stabbed, throttled, poisoned, blown up, hanged or boiled alive. Even by Elizabethan standards, this is overkill, but explains the huge popularity of the play even today.

BARABAS. “Know, Calymath, I aimed thy overthrow,
And had I but escaped this stratagem,
I would have brought confusion on you all,
Damned Christians dogs! and Turkish infidels!
But now begins the extremity of heat
To pinch me with intolerable pangs:
Die, life! fly, soul! tongue, curse thy fill, and die!

--The Jew of Malta, Christopher Marlowe (circa 1589)

[Simon Mcleish · Rating 4 out of 5]

Originally published on my blog here in March 1999.

Christopher Marlowe's play is certainly not in tune with the spirit of the second half of the twentieth century, with its portrayal of the Jew, Barabas, as the epitome of deceit and treachery. In his introduction to this edition, Peter J. Smith quotes Barry Kyle, who directed a revival in 1987, as originally thinking that the anti-Semitism would make it unstageable. He lessened the impact of this aspect of the play by using a clever trick to make the Christian leader of Malta appear to be the really unpleasant character.

In some ways, the Jewishness of Barabas is not important. He is explicitly meant to be someone who follows the teachings of Machiavelli (who appears in the prologue as Machevill, "Make-Evil"), whose analysis of politics was thought to be subversive and diabolical. On the surface, there is no particular reason whey the practitioner of his theories needs to be a Jew. In fact, the major reason in the plot for Barabas' faith is to provide the way in which he is put into the position of desiring revenge - through a discriminatory tax confiscating large amounts of his property to pay tribute to the Turks. His faith is clearly important to him, at least at the beginning of the play, because he refuses to become a Christian to avoid the tax, unlike the other Jews on the island (and unlike Shylock who reluctantly accepts baptism at the end of The Merchant of Venice).

In the end, there is really no escaping the anti-Semitism in this play. English people should perhaps not forget which country it was that first forced Jews to wear a yellow star and then expelled them, which country it was that had major anti-Jewish riots following accusations of ritual murder of children - this was medieval England. We should face up to our past, and the most positive way we can respond to this play is to let it shame us.

[Tiffany · Rating 4 out of 5]

I actually read an online version of this text provided by my teacher as part of my Introduction to Drama course, so this is not the same version I'm writing about, but is the same work. In many ways, this is the predecessor to The Merchant of Venice, which is a distinction that would already make it notable, but it also has a great amount of value in its own right. While perhaps not as powerful or seemingly progressive as its counterpart, there are very good dramatic speeches, powerful characters, and a tragic ending to consider, and it is certainly a great glimpse into the society from which it came. I certainly would suggest it to anyone that has an interest in dramatic works.

[Nicolas Shump · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a much more developed and mature piece of writing than Dr. Faustus. It is longer and better-written. In addition, there are numerous well-developed characters like Barabas and his daughter Abigail.
However, as you would expect, this play is ripe with anti-Semitism and Barabas is totally unredeemable and his servant is even worse.
The plot is better developed than in Faustus, but I feel the ending is a bit rushed. It still is not of the caliber of The Merchant of Venice, but it stands up well.