The Jew of Malta

I know someone who claims that Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice is in no way antisemitic and that Shylock is entirely the victim and not at all a villain. I’m pretty sure he never actually read the play but only heard the “If you prick us, do we not bleed” monologue. I have to wonder what he’d make of The Jew of Malta.

Marlowe’s story is far more bloody than The Merchant of Venice. It’s on the level of Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare’s most violent drama.

Barabas, the titular Jew of Malta, kills two of his daughter’s suitors, an entire convent when his grieving daughter becomes a nun, and then his daughter. That’s just the beginning–he has many more victims to cheat, double-cross, and murder, including a terrorist bombing of the Turkish fleet.

For some reason, this play isn’t often taught in schools.

It’s unclear at the beginning if Barabas was chaotic evil from the start or if his reign of terror began when the governor confiscated half of his wealth, along with the other three Jews on Malta. When Barabas complained, the governor took everything else from him, sparking Barabas’ war against humanity.

He pit Christians against Muslims, switching sides whenever one faction seemed too dominant. Ultimately, this was his undoing–after betraying Malta to Turkey, he back-pedaled to watch Christians kill the Turks. Instead, the Christians betrayed him, slowly boiling him to death in a pot.

Was there a moral? In the introduction, Machiavel (Marlowe’s stand-in for Machiavelli) scoffs at religion. Marlowe paints all religions as treacherous and greedy. Was Marlowe, as he was often accused, an atheist? Or were all his characters just horrible.

Shakespeare’s play are written with great dialogue, often one good quote after another. Marlowe’s dialogue wouldn’t be as confusing to students but it isn’t nearly as memorable.

Today, when one tweet about religion can ruin an entertainer’s career, it’s easy to forget that years ago, a careless remark could lead to being burned at the stake. Yet Marlowe attacked three different religions throughout the play (of course, Elizabethans wouldn’t have minded attacks against Islam or Judaism, and, if Marlowe could spin that the Christians of the play only represented Catholics, he’d been in the clear).

Still, Marlowe slings around insults that would be at home in an anonymous comment section on the Internet. Shakespeare was far more balanced even in The Merchant of Venice (but not Titus Andronicus).

Barabas, like Shylock, was both villain and victim, but only the most delusional reader could miss Barabas’ unrepentant villainy. Not that Merchant of Venice is subtle but The Jew of Malta ended almost like Nazi propaganda.

If students ever ask why they might read Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta instead of Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, I could come up with “for historical purposes” or “simple novelty” but, by every artistic standard I know, Shakespeare wins this hands down.