"So neatly plotted, and so well perform'd": Villain as Playwright in Marlowe's "The Jew of

Malta"
Author(s): Sara Munson Deats and Lisa S. Starks
Source: Theatre Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Oct., 1992), pp. 375-389
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3208554 .
Accessed: 23/06/2014 03:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Theatre Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "So neatlyplotted,and so well perform'd":
Villain as Playwrightin Marlowe's
TheJew ofMalta
Sara Munson Deats and Lisa S. Starks

ThatpopularStage-playes(theverypomps oftheDivellwhichwe renouncein Baptisme,

ifwe beleeve the Fathers)are sinfull,heathenish,lewde, ungodlySpectacles,and most
perniciousCorruptions;condemnedin all ages, as intolerableMischiefesto Churches,to
Republickes,to the manners,mindes,and soules of men. And thatthe Professionof
Play-poets,ofStageplayers;togetherwiththepenning,acting,and frequenting ofStage-
playes, are unlawfull,infamousand misbeseemingChristians.
WilliamPrynne1

Is thymindeNoble?and wouldstthoube further stir'dvp to magnanimity?

Behold,vpon
the stage thou maist see Hercules, Achilles,Alexander,Cesar, Alcibiades,Lysander,
Sertorius,Haniball,... withinfiniteothersin theirowne persons,qualities,& shapes,
animatingthee withcourage,deterringthee fromcowardise.... Artthou inclinedto
lust?behold the fallesof theTarquins,therape ofLucrece:the guerdonofluxuryin the
deathofSardanapalus:Appius destroyedin therauishingofVirginia,and thedestruction
of Troyin the lust of Helena. Artthou proud? our Scene presentsthee withthe fallof
Phaeton, Narcissus piningin the loue of his shadow, ambitiousHamon, now calling
himselfa God, and by and by thrustheadlong among the Diuels. We [actors]present
men withthe uglinesseof theirvices, to make themthe moreto abhorrethem,...
Thomas Heywood2

'Histriomastix edition(New Yorkand London:GarlandPublishing,

(1633),facsimile Inc., 1974),
was written
Titlepage. AlthoughHistriomastix manyyearsafterMarlowe'sdeath,we have selected
thisworkas a compendium oftheantitheatricaldiatribes thelate sixteenth
publishedthroughout
and earlyseventeenthcenturies.
2 AnApology forActors edition(New Yorkand London:GarlandPublishing,
(1610),facsimile Inc.,
1973),G.

ofEnglishand DirectoroftheEnglishGraduateProgramat the

Sara MunsonDeats is Professor
of
University SouthFloridaand Vice-President ofAmerica.Shehaspublished
oftheMarloweSociety
Marlowe,Lyly,and Jonson,and has recently
overa dozenarticleson Shakespeare, a
completed
WarringElements and Wondrous Architecture:Dis-
studyon Marloweentitled,
book-length
junction and Symmetryin Marlowe's Plays.

ofSouthFloridaand an instructor
Lisa S. Starks,a doctoralcandidateat theUniversity ofEnglish
at Hillsborough Community College,has publishedonfeministas wellas Renaissancestudies.She
iscurrentlycompletingherdissertation Identityas Performance:Shakespeare's English
entitled,
HistoryPlays and the Constructionof the Gendered Subject.

Theatre 44 (1992)375-389? 1992byTheJohnsHopkinsUniversity

Journal Press

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
376 / Sara MunsonDeats and Lisa S. Starks

These twoquotationsepitomizethemistywhirlpoolofglorification and thesharp,

dangerousrocksofinvectivethroughwhichthedramaofthelate sixteenthand early
seventeenthcenturieshad to steer. Of course, as JonasBarishdemonstrates,the
debate on the moralvalue of the theatrewas veryold, datingback at least to Plato,
thepoeticphilosopherwho paradoxicallybanishedall poets, and thusby extension
all playwrights,fromhis ideal republic.3But as Barish also notes, "outburstsof
sentimenttend to coincidewiththe flourishing
antitheatrical of theatreitself"(66).
Therefore, periodsofenormouspopularityforthetheatre- thegoldenage ofGreece,
the late Roman empire,sixteenth-century England, seventeenth-century France--
have evoked the most stridentdenunciationsof the stage.
The originalattackersofpoetry(and, byextension,ofdramaticpoetry)condemned
this art formfor threebasic reasons. First,the ontologicalstatus of poetrywas
denigrated;as a copy of a copy, poetry(like all art) is two removesfromreality.
Second, the motivationsof thepoet were impugned;poets imitatetheheroicdeeds
of othersbecause of theirinabilityto performthese deeds themselves;those who
cannot do, write.Last, the effectof poetryon its readersor audience was judged
pernicious;poetryinflamesthe passions, theveryelementof the human soul most
in need of restraint(Barish6-10). During the Renaissance,the haranguesagainst
poetrygenerally,but againstthe theatrespecifically, became more heated and at-
tackersadded three more items to theircatalogue grievancesagainstthe wicked
of
stage. First,the transvestismof the theatreviolatedthe Biblicalprohibitionagainst
men in women's garments.4Second, plays and playerswere seen as evil because
theysubstituted"notoriouslyingfables"foractual eventsand artificial persons for
theselfcreatedbyGod (Barish93); playswerethusdenouncedas feignedlies,players
as hypocrites and Machiavels(Barish96-98).5Third,thedramawas seen as dangerous
because it not only inflamedthe passions but actuallyencouragedthe audience to
imitatethevicesoftheevil charactersportrayed,6 muchas today'stelevisionis often

3 Jonas
Barish, TheAntitheatrical Prejudice(Berkeley,Los Angeles, and London: Universityof Cal-
iforniaPress, 1981), 5. Our discussion ofthe theatricaldebate is deeply indebted to Barish's definitive
study. Many of the subsequent referencesto this work will be included within the text. See also
JonathanDollimore's discussion of this controversyin "Two Concepts of Mimesis: Renaissance
LiteraryTheoryand TheRevenger'sTragedy,"in Dramaand Mimesis,ed. JamesRedmond (New York:
Cambridge UniversityPress, 1980), 25-50.
4 Barish,
91. On the evils of transvestismsee also Stephen Gosson, PlayesConfutedin fiveActions,
Proving that theyare not to be suffred in a Christiancommonweale, by thewaye [sic] boththeCavils of
ThomasLodge,and thePlay ofPlayes(1582), sig. E3, 195, cited by William Ringler,StephenGosson:A
Biographical and CriticalStudy(New York: Octagon Books, 1972), 73, 75. For a fullerdiscussion of the
Anti-
prohibitionagainst men in women's clothes, see Laura Levine, "Men in Women's Clothing:
Theatricality and Effeminization from 1579 to 1642," 28
Criticism (1986): 121-43 and JeanE. Howard,
"Renaissance Antitheatricality and the Politicsof Gender and Rank in Much Ado AboutNothing,"in
Shakespeare Reproduced: the Text in Historyand Ideology,eds. JeanE. Howard and Marion F. O'Connor
(London: Methuen, 1987), 168-72.
1Gosson excoriatesthe sin of endemic to fictionand to drama in PlayesConfutedin
counterfeiting
fiveActions,D4-4v, 188, and E3, 195, cited by Ringler,StephenGosson,73-75. For the relationship
between the Machiavel and role-playing,see MargaretScott, "Machiavelli and Machiavel," Renais-
sanceDrama n.s. 15 (1984): 170.
6
Barish, 118-20. Also see Anthony Munday, A Secondand ThirdBlast of RetraitfromPlaies and
Theatres(1580) (New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1973), 3, 43-44; and I. G., A
RefutationoftheApologyforActors(1615), facsimileedition (New York & London: Garland Publishing
Inc., 1973), 61-62.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 VILLAINAS PLAYWRIGHT / 377

blamedforinciting"copycat"murdersand otheratrocities. Theselasttwoaccusations

appear to have caused muchconcerneven to thosesympathetic to poetryand to the
theatre,motivating GeorgePuttenham,authorofTheArteofEnglishPoesie,to censure
the uncontrolledartistwho mightbreed "Chimeresand monstersin man's imagi-
nations,and not onely in his imaginations,but also in all of his ordinarieactions
and lifewhich ensues."7
Barishremarkson the ratherfeebledefensesmarshalledby the advocates of the
theatreinresponsetotheferociousassaultsofitsattackers(117-22).SirPhilipSidney's
onlycommentson thelivestagetendtobe negative;however,he does offera ringing
defenseof poetry,seekingto restorethe metaphysialprestigeof the imitativearts
by positingan ideal as opposed to an empiricalmimesis.sSidneyinsiststhatpoetry,
unlikehistory,can imitatethe "ideal," purgedof the dross of the actualworld,and
thus the poet "liftedup with the vigorof his owne inventiondoth grow in effect
intoanothernaturein makingthingseitherbetterthannaturebringsforth,or,quite
anew, formssuch as never were in nature."' More pertinentto the debate on the
moralityof the theatreis Thomas Heywood's An Apology forActors.In thiswork,
Heywood offersa clumsyapologia for the stage,basing his defenseon theantiquity
of actors,the dignityof actors,and their"true"quality,througha series of rather
ineptexamplesarguingfortheinstructional value and the social and politicalutility
of the theatre.Thus, the battleof the pens and pamphletsragedback and forthas
people continuedto flockto the theatre.
Given the topicalityand virulenceof the controversy concerningthe theatre,it is
not surprisingto findthe dramas of the Elizabethanand Jacobeanperiods actively
participating in this debate, self-reflexively
censuring,championing,or simplyex-
ploring their own medium-its nature,its purpose,its materials,and its moralva-
As
lidity. James L. Calderwood suggestsin referencetoWilliamShakespeare'splays,
"dramaticartitself--its materials,itsmedia of languageand theatre,itsgenericforms
and conventions,its relationshipto truthand social order-is a dominantShake-
speareantheme,perhapshis mostabidingsubject."10 Barishdemonstratesthedeep
ambivalencethatmany playwrightsof the period felttowardtheirown medium,
focusingparticularly on thetensionbetweenfascination and disapprovalin theplays
of Shakespeareand Ben Jonson(127-54).Anne Righter,in herinfluential treatment
of the play metaphorin Shakespeare,furtherchronicleswhat she sees as Shake-
speare's transitionthroughouthis writingcareerfromconventionalacceptanceto
mistrustto celebrationof dramaticart.11

7 George Puttenham,
The Arteof EnglishPoesie, facsimileedition, 1589 (Kent, Ohio: Kent State
UniversityPress, 1970), 35.
8
See Dollimore's valuable distinctionbetween "idealistic" and "empirical"mimesisin "Two Con-
cepts of Mimesis," 25-49 (especially 25-26).
9
Sir Philip Sidney, DefenseofPoesy,ed. Lewis Soens (Lincoln: Universityof Nebraska Press, 1970),
9.
' James L. Calderwood, Shakespearean Metadrama(Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press,
1971), 5.
1 Anne and theIdea of thePlay (London: Chatto and Windus, 1964). Other
Righter,Shakespeare
studies investigatingShakespeare's relationshipto the antitheatrical prejudice of the period include
Howard, "Renaissance Antitheatricality and the Politics of Gender and Rank in Much Ado About
Nothing,"163-87, and JyotsnaSingh, "Renaissance Antitheatricality, Antifeminism,and Shake-
speare's Antonyand Cleopatra,"RenaissanceDrama n.s. 20 (1989): 99-121.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
378 / Sara MunsonDeats and Lisa S. Starks

Amongthesevaluablecommentaries, however,theplaysofChristopher Marlowe

have surprisingly been neglected.Thisoversightis particularly sinceMar-
significant
lowe's dramas were writtenbeforethose of Shakespeareand Jonsonand unques-
tionablyinfluencedtheseplaysin manyways. We submitthatMarlowesharedwith
Shakespeareand Jonsona deep ambivalencetowardhis own mediumand thathis
plays,likethoseofmanyofhis contemporaries, probe,censure,and
self-reflexively
celebratedramaticart. Moreover,Marlowe's ambivalencetowardhis art and his
professionis mostvividlyembodiedin the characterofBarabas,the surrogateplay-
wrightand villainin Marlowe's TheJewofMalta. Indeed, Barabas may well be the
firstvillainas playwright to treadtheRenaissancestage,and, as such,theprogenitor
of an entireclan of villainousinteriorplaywrights.Among these are lago, Vindici,
and Volpone,a trioof Machiavellian-Vice villainsforwhom "the play's the thing"
forwhichtheysacrifice notonlytheirconsciencesbutsometimestheirlittlekingdoms
as well. Yet althoughthe theatricalfunctionsand motivationsof lago (Othello),Vol-
pone (Volpone), and Vindici(TheRevenger's Tragedy) have been thoroughly explored,12
the dramaturgical importanceof Barabas,the probableprogenitorof all three,has
been critically overlooked.13 In the followingessay, therefore, we will seek to dem-
onstratethe centrality of the theatricalmotifto Marlowe's TheJewofMalta as well
as therelevanceoftheplay to theantitheatrical debateoftheperiod.We willfurther
attempt to show that The Jew ofMalta not only reflectsbut actuallyparticipatesin
thisantitheatrical debate,notonlyintroducing theinteriordirector(or adaptinghim
fromhis medieval ancestor,the moralityVice), but also dramatizingsome of the
issues thatwould be debated throughoutthe followingdecades, both on the page
and on the stage.
debatesofthe
In situatingMarlowe'splay notonlyin relationto theantitheatrical
period but also in relationto the developmentof the Elizabethan/Jacobean
drama,
we are mergingtwo criticalmethodologies--thenew historicist and the rhetorical.

12 For discussions of see Sidney R. Homan, "Iago's Aesthetics:Othello

Iago as the artist-playwright,
and Shakespeare's Portraitof the Artist,"Shakespeare Studies5 (1969): 141-48; StanleyEdgar Hyman,
"Portraitsof the Artist:Iago and Prospero," Shenandoah21 (1970): 18-28; and Lawrence Danson,
TragicAlphabet(New Haven and London: Yale UniversityPress, 1974), 97-121. Alexander Leggatt
("The Suicide ofVolpone," University ofTorontoQuarterly 39 [1969]: 19-32), Stephen Greenblatt("The
False Ending in Volpone,"Journal ofEnglishand GermanPhilology75 [1976]: 29-43), and JohnSweeney
("Volponeand the Theatre of Self-Interest,"EnglishLiteraryRenaissance12 [1982]: 220-41) present
Volpone as a type of the playwrightand stress the metadramaticimplicationsof the play. Michael
Mooney ("The LuxuriousCircle:Figurenposition in TheRevenger's Tragedy,"EnglishLiterary Renaissance
13 [1983]:162-81) findsa corresponding"metadramaticself-consciousness"in TheRevenger'sTragedy,
while ScottMcMillin("Actingand Violence: TheRevenger'sTragedyand its Departures fromHamlet,"
Studiesin EnglishLiterature24 [1984]:275-91) interpretsthe play as "virtuallyan exercisein theatrical
self-abandonment,"which "along with being about Hamlet"is also about the theatre.
13 Amid the plethora of exegesis on The JewsofMalta, only four critics,to our knowledge,
have
commentedon the theatricality ofBarabas, and none of the fourhas developed his oftenprovocative
insightsinto a "metadramatic"reading of the play nor related Barabas's histrionic/directorial stance
to the centralcriticalcrux of the play-the Jew's abortivealliance with Ferneze. Among the critics
noting the overt theatricality of the play are Charles Masinton, Christopher Marlowe'sTragicVision
(Athens: Ohio UniversityPress, 1972), 58-68; Don Beecher, "TheJewofMalta and the Ritual of the
Inverted Moral Order," CashiersElisabethains12 (1977): 50; Michael Goldman, "Marlowe and the
Histrionicsof Ravishment,"in Two RenaissanceMythmakers: ChristopherMarloweand BenJohnson, ed.
Alvin Kernan (Baltimore:JohnHopkins UniversityPress, 1977), 31; Greenblatt,"Marlowe, Marx,
and Anti-Semitism,"CriticalInquiry5 (1978): 303-7.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 VILLAINAS PLAYWRIGHT / 379

New historicismnot only assertsthatculturalforms,includingliterature,are pro-

duced by the economic,political,and social forcesof theirhistoricalperiods,but
also holds thattheseculturalforms,in turn,mold and shape theverymaterialforces
that have produced them. This approach thus dissolves the boundariesbetween
historicaland literarytexts,betweensocial and culturalforms.Conversely,therhe-
commentson the play as play, focusingon the
toricalperspectiveself-reflexively
natureand functionof dramaticartitself.In combiningthese two criticalmethod-
ologies in a new historical/rhetorical
analysis,we seek to explorethe significance
of
TheJewofMalta both as an aestheticobjectand as a culturalforminteracting with
its social milieu.

II
Barabas is a Janus-faced figure,lookingback to the medievalVice (himselfoften
a thespianofno meanability)and forwardtothenumerousElizabethanand Jacobean
scoundrelswho becomeintoxicatedwiththeartistry oftheirown villainy.Although
Baiabas is ofteninterpreted like Volpone as the embodimentof greed,like lago as
the archetypalMachiavel,or like Vindice as the prototypicrevenger,fromfirstto
last, he is also an obsessive dramaturge,scriptingscenariosand manipulatinghis
castofvictimsforhis own pleasureand profit.Ifone views theplayfroma "realistic,"
or what CatherineBelseytermsan "illusionist,"perspective--thereby stressingthat
dramaticrealityis always an illusion14--the theatricalmotifclarifiesBarabas's mo-
tivation,which otherwiselacks credibility. For Barabas, we submit,delightin im-
provisationand impersonation provesparamount,and itis his obsessionwith"play-
ing" (not the Machiavel's desireforpower nor the usurer'sgreed) thatgalvanizes
his energythroughoutmuchoftheplay and promptshis final,fatalintrigueagainst
Calymath.Furthermore, ifone views the play froman emblematicperspective,in-
terpreting Barabasnotas a three-dimensional crediblehumanbeingbutas a rhetorical
constructof the antitheatrical debate,Barabas emergesas the surrogateplaywright,
themouthpiecethroughwhichMarlowecan communicatewithhisaudience,sharing
withthemthe creativeprocessand thesheerjoy ofplaymaking,whilealso warning
them,throughBarabas's spectacularfall,of the perils of playmaking.Lastly,the
potencyofBarabas'splayswithinMarlowe'splaycommentson thepowerofdramatic
artto constructreality.
Barabas's race and professionimmediately establishhimas thestereotypic usurer,
whilehis posture,gesture,and dialogue-the fingering ofcoinsas he chantsa hymn
to precious himas a stageicon forthesin ofcovetousness.15 However
his scornfulstones--mark
of makes it clear thathe values means as
rejection "paltrysilverlings"
well as ends, styleas well as substance,implyingthathis persona as usureris only
one of themanyrolesin whichhis creatorwillcast him.As the playprogresses,the
thespianJewconsciouslyassumes an entirerepertoireof publicroles,spanningthe
social spectrumof Malta fromgovernorto tycoonto (potential)friarto musician,
whilehis creatorconflatesdramaticconventionsto producea hybridprivatevillain-

Catherine Belsey, The SubjectofTragedy(London: Methuen, 1985), 23-26.

14

15Morton Bloomfield,in The Seven Deadly Sins (East Lansing: Michigan State UniversityPress,
1969), 199, cites a number of iconographicrepresentationsto illustratethe linkingof covetousness
with coffers,bags, and the countingof coins.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
380 / Sara MunsonDeats and Lisa S. Starks

partJewishusurer,partMachiavel,partrevenger,partmedievalVice--who is also
a surrogateplaywright.
The openingscene oftheplayrevealsBarabasas an inveteraterole-player. He first
acts thepartof thewise Jewishpatriarch,pretendingprudentlyto advise his fellow
Jewswhileactuallywithholdingfromthemcrucialinformation concerningtheplans
to confiscatetheirwealth. In the followingscene, cast in the role of the despised
Jewand Christ-killerby the sanctimoniousChristians,Barabas switchesthe scripts
and plays instead the innocentmartyr,while Ferneze speaks lines that echo the
infamouswords of the high-priest Caiaphas to Christ:
No Jew,we takeparticularly
thine
To savetheruinofa multitude.
Andbetterone wantfora common good.
Thanmanyperishfora privateman.16
[I. ii. 95-98]
HereMarloweachievesa trenchant role-reversal,
momentarily castinghisplaywright-
villain-vicein therole of Christwhilemaneuveringthe governorofChristianMalta
temporarily intotheroleofthearchChrist-killer Caiaphas. Afterthe exitof Ferneze
and theMalteseknights,Barabasassumes yetanotherBiblicalalias, thatofthemuch
sufferingJob,mimicking Job'slinesfromtheBiblewhiletrivializingJob'sgreatspir-
itual agon into a mundane loss of wealth. However, despite his consistentrole-
playing,the proteanBarabas does not make his debut as interiorplaywrightuntil
he discoversthathis house has been confiscatedas a nunnery.Desperateto retrieve
his treasure,he castsAbigailas a penitentconvertand himselfas thebetrayedfather,
craftlydevisinga plot to regainhis wealth.His strategemis successful,and his first
financial"hit"inspireshis subsequentrevengetragedy.
Afterhe regainshis treasureand dedicates himselfto vengeance (II. iii. 7-31),
Barabas, the ostensibleemblem of covetousness,ironicallybecomes increasingly
indifferentto "the desireforgold," thepowerfulforcepropellingthemajorityof the
play's characters,includingemperors,governors,knights,friars,and bawds. Ifwe
view Barabasas an illusionistcharacter credibledrives,we must
withpsychologically
concludethat,as theplayprogresses,playingand plottingbecomeforBarabasmore
and more an end in themselvesratherthan a means to an end. On one occasion,
Barabas nonchalantlydismissesa defaulteddebt with a snap of the fingersand a
cursoryaside:
sendsmeworda merchant's
Myfactor fled
Thatowesmefora hundredtunofwine:
I weigh it thusmuch;I have wealthenough.
[II. iii. 241-243]

He thenturnshis energiesto the manipulationof Lodowickand Mathias. The Jew

of Malta expressesa similardisregardformoneyearlierin the same scene during
his bravuraboastingcontestwithIthamore.Gloatingover his purportedatrocities,

16 All quotations fromTheJewofMalta are taken fromRoma Gill's edition of The CompletePlays of
Marlowe
Christopher Press,1971).Fora fullerdiscussionoftheBiblicalechoesin
(OxfordUniversity
ParodyinMarlowe'sTheJew
thisscene,see SaraMunsonDeats,"Biblical ofMalta:A Reconsideration,"
37 (1988): 32-36.
and Literature
Christianity

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 VILLAINAS PLAYWRIGHT / 381

Barabassarcastically vauntsthat"now and then,to cherishChristianthieves,/I am

contentto lose some of my crowns"(II. iii. 175-176).But since thisheroic-boasting
- morean auditionfortheroleofapprentice
contestis probablyitselfan improvisation
villainthanan accurateaccountofactualknaveries-Barabas's testimony (likeall his
publicdialogue) is highlysuspect.Nevertheless,thisclaimdoes anticipatetheJew's
laterindifferencetowardwealthand may thus expresshis priorities.

Conversely,if we view Barabas as an emblematiccharacter,we must conclude

that,as the play progresses,the Jewbegins more and more to assume the role of
the surrogateplaywright throughwhomMarlowecommunicateswithhis audience.
In his second interiordrama,Barabas scriptsa play in whichhe mustpromptthe
charactersunknowinglyto respond to his cues. Promisinghis daughterAbigailto
bothLodowickand Mathias,Barabasexploitstheircompetitive desiresto orchestrate
his plot. He simultaneouslypressureshis daughterto play a partverymuch "out
ofcharacter," coercingherto encourageLodowick'sadvanceseven thoughshe loves
Mathias.As he directshis unsuspectingactorsin theirparts,he continuallyconfides
his designs to the audience in asides, thus informing
themthathe is acting-even
as the actorplayingBarabasis acting,and thathe is also directingthe action--even
as the actorsin theplay are beingdirected.Frequently,he also boasts ofhis skillas
bothplaywrightand director,using the term"cunning"to describehis craft:

True,and it shall be cunninglyperform'd.

[II. iii.364]

I cannotchoose but like thyreadiness;

Yetbe notrash,butdo itcunningly.
[II. iii.375]

So, now will I go in to Lodowick,

And like a cunningspiritfeignsome lie.
[II.iii.378-379]
Since "cunning"at this timedenoted not only clevernessbut also art or skill,the
triplerepetitionof thissuggestivetermstressesthe importanceto Barabas of style
as well as substance.17 Furthermore,in puttingsuch words in his villain'smouth,
Marlowedrawsattentionto his own playas play,as a mimesis;foreven as Barabas's
scene is being performed,the scene thatMarlowehas composedis also being cun-
ninglyenacted.
Marlowe,throughBarabas,also commentson theprocessofplaymaking.Barabas
is a playwrightat work, contemplatingvarious possible dramaticstrategiesand
resolutions.First,afterauditioningIthamoreforthe partof tool villainin a kind of
"any evil you can do, I can do better"contest,Barabas directsthe slave to deliver
the letterthatwill triggerthe fatalduel. In responseto Ithamore'squery,"Tis poi-
son'd, is it not?" (II. iii. 369), Barabasbrieflyconsidersthatploy, "and, yet,it might
be done thatway" (307). Finally,however,Barabasrejectsthepredictablesolution,
seekinginsteada morecunningtacticwherebyhe willmaneuverthe two rivalsinto

17The OED (The ShorterOxfordEnglishDictionary,ed. C. T. Onions [Oxford: Clarendon Press],

3rd.ed., 1933)givesthefollowingdenotations of "cunning"as current at thistime:"intelligence;
knowledgehow to do a thing;ability,
skill;a scienceor art,a craft;skillful
deceit,craftiness."

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
382 / Sara MunsonDeats and Lisa S. Starks

destroyingeach other.Throughthiscannyruse, Barabas displayshis adroitcrafts-

manship,even as Marlowe does himself.Whilewatchinghis firstrevengetragedy
performedaccordingto his directions,Barabas/Marloweapplauds himselfon his
craft:

O bravely and yettheythrust

fought! nothome.
Now Lodowick,
no Mathias;so! [Bothfall.]
So nowtheyhaveshow'dthemselves tobe tallfellows.
[II. iii. 1-2]

Ithamore,Barabas'salter-egoand "clack,"also praisesthebrillianceofbothBarabas's

and Marlowe's production,"Why, was thereeven seen such villainy,/So neatly
plotted,and so well perform'd?"(III. iii. 1-2). Thus throughBarabasand Ithamore,
Marlowenot onlyshareswiththe audience his creativeplotting,but he also invites
audience admirationforhis skilleddramaturgy.
ThroughBarabas,Marlowe continuesto constructone outrageoussituationafter
another.In the episode of the conventmurders,Marloweparodies the traditionof
theItalianatevillain,allowingBarabasto revelin his ruse of "time-released"poison,
a ploy thathe will lateruse as the Frenchmusician.Marlowe now expertlyspins
the skeinofthisintrigueintotheunfoldingpattern,allowingBarabasto manipulate
the hypocritical friarsthroughtheirgreed,even as he had earliermanipulatedthe
suitorsthroughtheirlust. Barabasthenplays each againsttheotherto construct, as
he gloats, "such a plot forboth theirlives,/As neverJewnor Christianknew the
like" (IV. i. 117-118),a plot wherebythe friars,althoughactuallyBarabas's victims,
appear to have destroyedeach other.
In the nextepisode, Barabas is confronted by two rivalinteriordramatists.First,
Ithamoreseeks to writehis own script,castinghimselfas themythichero,Bellamira
as the epic heroine,Philia-Borzaas the Senecan Nuntius,and Barabas as the cari-
caturedJew.Barabas's furiousresponsederivespartiallyfromfearof discovery(IV.
iii. 60-62),partiallyfromgrudgingloss of gold (IV. iii. 49), but equally,we suspect,
frombeing temporarily out-plotted(and with such insultingdialogue) by his ap-
prenticeplaywright.However,Bellamira,unwillingto respondto Ithamore'scues,
seeks to substituteher own scenario.FinallyBarabas, hammingit up as a French
musician,usurps both Ithamore'sand Bellamira'sscripts.Throughthe strategems
of the poison and the sleepingpotion,both traditionaltheatricaldevices, Barabas
and Marlowe not only succeed in resolvingthe blackmailbut also provideBarabas
withthe escape he needs in orderforthe play to continue.
Undauntedby his narrowescape, Barabas seizes thisopportunity to compose a
new vignettein whichhe enactstheallyoftheTurkand a traitorto Malta. Barabas's
well-executedplot succeeds, and he accepts the role of governorof Malta, only to
decide thatas governorhe mustscripta new scenario,incorporating Fernezeas co-
starwhile eliminatingCalymathand his cohortsfromhis new cast of characters.
Viewed froman illusionistperspective,Barabas'sfinalintrigueraisesseriousprob-
lems concerningmotivationand characterconsistency.In Act 5, scene 2, Barabas
shares with the audience in soliloquyhis rationaleforconspiringwith his enemy
Fernezeagainsthis benefactorCalymath:
Thushastthougotten, bythypolicy,
No simpleplace,no smallauthority:
I nowam Governor ofMalta;true,
ButMaltahatesme,and in hatingme,

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 VILLAINAS PLAYWRIGHT / 383

My life'sin danger;and what boots it thee,

PoorBarabas,tobe theGovernor,
Whenas thylifeshall be at theircommand?
No, Barabas,thismustbe looked into;
And, since by wrongthou got'stauthority,
Maintainit bravelyby firmpolicy,
At least unprofitable
lose it not.
[27-37]

As a numberof commentators have observed,theJew'sreasoningis not onlypoor

"policy"but also ForalthoughMachiavelliprudentlywarned
Machiavellism.
faulty
rulersnot to make themselvesodious to theirsubjects,he also cautionedagainst
trusting an opponent whom one had offended.'18 In temporarilytrustingFerneze,
whom he has certainlywronged and probably intends later to betray (V. ii. 108-112),
Barabas disregardsMachiavelli'scaveat and even his own dictum:"Greatinjuries
are not so soon forgot"(I. ii. 207). Such naive logic fromthe wilyBarabas suggests
and criticshave offeredalternative
rationalization, explanationsfortheJew'salliance
withhis foe, rangingfrom"desire forgold" (the bribecollectedby the Governor),
to naive trust,to conservativelongingforthe status quo, to need forlove.19We

18
In hisdiscussionofdefenses,NiccoloMachiavelli enjoinsthatwhether ornotthePrincedecides
tomaintain citadels,thebestcitadelis "nottoincurre thepeople'shatred"(ThePrince: Three Renaissance
Classics,ed. and trans.BurtonA. Mulligan[NewYork:Scribner's, 1953],20:82);moreover, he should
"flythosethingswhichcausehimtobee odiousand vile"(ThePrince, 19:68).However,Machiavalli
also offers thecaveatthatin orderto avoidbeingthetargetofrevenge,a rulermusteitherflatter
or crushhis opponents(ThePrince,3:9) and further cautionsthat"whoever,beleeves,thatwith
greatpersonagesnew benefitsblotout the remembrance of old injuriesis muchdeceiv'd"(The
Prince, 7:31),warningthat"oldinjuriesarenevercancelledbynewbenefits" (TheDiscourses ofNiccolo
Machiavelli, trans.LeslieJ.Walker[London:Routledge, 1975],3:4 [2]).Machiavellialso admonished
that"hee thatgivesthemeanesto anotherto becomepowerfull"-asBarabasdoes to Fernezeat
the end of the play-"ruineshimselfe"(ThePrince,3:15). Barabas'sviolationof severalof these
important Machiavellian preceptsis discussedby IrvingRibner,"Marloweand Machiavelli," Com-
parative 6 (1954):352-53,and byCatharineMinshull,"Marlowe's'SoundMachevill,"
Literature Ren-
aissanceDraman.s. 13 (1982):40, 47-48.
19Nan Carpenter ("InfiniteRiches:A NoteofMarlovianUnity,"NotesandQueries o.s. 196[1951]:
50-52)speaksformajority opinionwhen she defines "the desirefor gold" as theunifying themeof
theplay,theforceinitiating boththe drama'scentralactionand its subsidiary plots.Althougha
numberofothercritics focuson a Machiavellian powerdriveas theplay'sdominant motif, mostof
thesecommentators wouldagreethattheJew'sfatalleaguewithFernezeresultsnotfromadherence
to so muchas deviationfromthe credoof Machiavellian "policy"(see, forexample,HowardS.
Babb,"Policyin Marlowe'sTheJewofMalta,"English Literature
History 24 [1957]:91 and Beecher,
"TheJewofMaltaandtheRitualofInverted MoralOrder,"56).Greenblatt ("MarloweandRenaissance
Self-Fashioning," inTwoRenaissance Mythmakers, 53)givesan exampleofthisfaulty Machiavellianism,
arguingthatBarabasis finally undonebythe"minuteshredsofrestraint andcommunity thatsurvive
in him":"his confidence in Ithamore,his desireto avoidtheactualpossessionof power,and his
imprudent thrustin theChristian governorofMalta."HarryLevin(Christopher Marlowe: theOver-
reachers [London:Faberand Faber,1954,rpt. 1965],99), as faras we are aware,was the first
commentator to suggestthatBarabas'stragicweaknessis not Machiavellian cunning,nornaive
trust,so muchas a need forlove,a readingthathas sincebeen developedby a numberof com-
mentators. AlanFriedman ("TheShackling ofAccidents inMarlowe'sTheJewofMalta,"TexasStudies
inLiteratureandLanguage 8 [1966]:156-58)adds a noveltwisttothe"innocent Barabas"interpretation,
limningtheJewas an underreacher withbotha "childishly naive trustin Frenezeas embodying
just social authority and trueChristianmorality" and a "conservative hope of restoring the old
order."Fora valuablesurveyofthiscritical cruxoftheplay,see KennethFriedenreich, "TheJewof
Maltaand theCritics:A ParadignforMarloweStudies,"PapersinLanguage andLiterature 13 (1977):
318-35.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
384 / Sara MunsonDeats and Lisa S. Starks

would argue, however,thatBarabas's primarydesideratumis not gold, revenge,

stability,or love. For example,despite his vow to "make a profit"of his policy,
Barabas seems surprisingly unconcernedwiththe thousandpounds offeredby the
Governor,temporarily rejectingthe ransom:
nay,keepitstill,
ForifI keepnotpromise,trustnotme.
AndGovernor, nowpartake mypolicy.
[V. v. 24-26]

He thenturnswithrelishtocontemplatehis newestwickedcharade(justas he earlier

disdainedto pursue the debt owed himby the merchant,preferring insteadto plot
of
ingenioustragedies blood). Moreover, thethesis thatBarabas's primarymotivation
is revenge,althoughapplicable to much of the drama, failsto explain the Jew's
perversebehaviorin his momentof triumph,when he forgoesvengeanceupon his
deadlyenemyto directhis hostilitytowardhis patron.Revengewithoutplay-acting
seems to hold littleattraction to see Barabasas naively
forBarabas.It is also difficult
trusting his erstwhile ally, whom he apparentlyplans double-crossshould the
to
opportunity arise, as he tellsus in an aside (V. ii. 108-112).Finally,the arguments
thattheconservativemerchantseeks a returnto stability, or thatthealienatedOut-
sideryearsforacceptanceand attemptsto purchasethisapprovalby saving Malta
fromtheTurk,attractive thoughthesereadingsmaybe, findmeagersupportin the
play's dialogue.
Barabas's specious reasoningdoes reflectthe attemptto offercredible,prudent
motivesforirrational impulses,butBarabas'sexultantasides to theaudiencesuggest
that these drives are more artisticand directorialthan mercenaryor emotional.
Addictedto histrionics forthe sake ofhistrionics, Barabas,the virtuosohoaxerand
poseur,revels notin the trivia
of ordinary commerce butin the"kinglykindoftrade"
of purchasingtownsby treachery and sellingthemby deceit(V. v. 49-51), withthe
inventivenessofthedeceitmorecriticalthanthevalue ofthetown.Or, viewedfrom
anotherperspective,theartistic pleasureofthewell-plotted strategembecomesmore
important than the monetary reward. Saluting the handiwork of the carpentersin
constructinghis death machine, Barabas is also lauding his own expertisein dramatic
skullduggery:
Leavenothing
lose,all levell'dto mymind,
Why,nowI see thatyouhaveartindeed.
[V. v. 4-5]20

Like the chronicrecidivistwho must killand kill untilhe is finallyapprehended,

Barabasmustplotand plotuntilhe is finallyentangledin his own scenario.It is this
mechanicalrepetition thatrendersBarabascomicratherthantragic.Initially,theJew,
as masterpuppeteer,pulled the strings;ultimately, he becomes the marionetteof
his own obsession.21

20N. W. Bawcutt's glosson theword"levelled"--"wellmade,accurately con-

and symmetrically
structed" -combineswiththeuse of the term"art"to supportour metadramatic readingof this
passage (TheJewofMalta,The RevelPlays[Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press,1978],185,
n. 5.5.3).
21Greenblatt discussesthe repetition of all of Marlowe'sheroes("RenaissanceSelf-
compulsion
Fashioning," 50).

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 VILLAINAS PLAYWRIGHT / 385

Viewed froman illusionistperspective,therefore, Barabas'sobsessionwithplaying

provides a crediblemotivationforhis finalbizarreintrigue.However, approached
froman emblematicperspective,thefinalepisode oftheplay can be interpreted very
differently. This incidentdisplaysMarlowe's dramaturgical skillin escapingfroma
perplexingsituation.How can he dispose of Barabas, who as villain/hero of the
tragedy must be annihilated by Act 5, since the Jew of Malta is obviously able to
write and act his way out of any predicament?By allowing Barabas to become
intoxicatedby his own artistictechniquesand by introducinga new, more adept
playwrightwith a conflicting script,Marlowe again proves his own adroitcrafts-
manship. Thus, unlike his villain/hero and dramaticalter-egoBarabas, Marlowe
maintainshis aestheticdetachmentand scriptsa play thatsuccessfullyresolveshis
dilemma. Consequently,when we observe Barabas constructing the set forwhat
seems to be his interiorplay-actingas stagehandand stagemanageras well as play-
wright,director, and we realizethat,ironically,
he is buildinga setforFerneze's
counterdrama.And as actor--
Barabaslauds his own artisticintrigues,"Leave nothingloose,
all levell'd to my mind/Why,now I see thatyou have artindeed" (V. v. 4-5), we
realize thatMarlowe, standingbehind his surrogateplaywright,is congratulating
himselfon his own well-madeplay.
Yet even as he boils, literally"stewingin his own juice," Barabas brags of his
exploits,ofhis-and ofMarlowe's--skillas a dramatist.Thus, in his death as in his
life,Barabas revelsin intrigue,offeringan emblemforboth the pleasures and the
dangersof playmaking.
The perilsof playwrighting are reflectednot onlyin Barabas's spectacularfallbut
also in theincreasingloss ofpower and statusresultingfromhis masquerades.This
progressivelimitationis revealedin Barabas's downward trajectory as he declines
and
socially,histrionically, tonally.Socially, he descends from the financialmagnate
of the firstact (masterof merchants,patriarchto peers, associate of aristocrats,
adversaryof governors)to the trickster of the latteracts (allyof slaves, opponentof
promiscuousnuns, venal and
friars, swindlingbawds). Aftercompletingthecircuit
ofMalta's socialestates,Barabas'sfortune,liketherotatingwheel on whichhe rides,
surprisingly ascends, as he tanglesagain withrulersbeforeplummetingto disaster.
Accompanyingthissocialdemotion(and laterbriefpromotion)is a trivializing ofthe
publicroles thatBarabas selects,or is constrainedto perform.The arroganttycoon,
the wise Jewishpatriarch,the righteousmartyr,and the lamentingOld Testament
prophetof the firstact become the unctuous marriagebrokerof the second, the
aggrievedfatherof the third,and both the lugubriousconvertand the buffoonish
Frenchmusicianofthefourth.In thelastact,consonantwiththecircularmovement
ofthedrama,Barabasassumesa numberofsomewhatmoredignifiedroles,including
an antitypeof Christ,the ally of the Turk,and the governorof Malta, a prestigious
part that,surprisingly, he does not feelqualifiedto perform.In Malta's theatreof
theabsurd,therefore, Barabasplaysmanyparts.As he rollicksthroughhis multiple
masquerades,thedrama'stonemodulatesto an accompanyingkey,alternating from
tragicomedyto black comedyto farce.
Ironically,Barabas'sobsessionwiththeaestheticsofintrigueleads to an increasing
loss of controlover his medium, as the Jewbecomes less and less the presiding
genius and moreand moretheactiveparticipant in his own skits.AlthoughBarabas
plotsand scriptsthemanslaughter ofthetworivallovers,he is notan activeperformer
in thecatastropheofhis New ComedyturnedRevengeTragedy.Similarly, he directs

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
386 / Sara MunsonDeats and Lisa S. Starks

withoutphysicallytakingpartin the massacreof the nuns, althoughthis timehe

does furnisha centralprop-the murderweapon. However,despiteBarabas's care
in plottingtheseinitialplays-within-the-play, each scripterodes Barabas'scontrolof
theactionby requiringan encoreperformance: the slayingof theloversleads to the
homicideofAbigailand thenuns,which,in turn,resultsin themurderofthefriars.
Moreover,Barabasbecomesincreasingly involvedphysicallyin each successivemur-
der,progressingfromplaywright-director, watchingfrom"above" the catastropheof
his initialrevengetragedy,to playwright-director-stage manager, descendingto center
stage to preparethe toxicweapon forhis second murdermystery,to playwright-
director-stage manager-actor,withthehelp ofIthamore,physicallystrangling one of
the friarsand settingthe stage forthe framingof the other.Ithamore'sunexpected
debutas rivaldramatistimpelsBarabasintoimprovising a fourthinterlude,in which
he performs all thetheatrical
functions- playwright, director, stagemanager,costume
designer,and actor(cast as a triplemurderer).Totallyunderrehearsedand stripped
ofsupportingcast,Barabasgivesa clumsysolo performance thatalmostleads to the
closing of his show. Yet always a quick study, with his characteristic
resiliencethe
Jewrecoupshis fortuneand turnsthe FrenchfarceofAct4 (a definiteflop)intothe
passion play ofAct 5 (a resoundinghit).22AlthoughBarabasis ostensiblyin control
in Act5, his incurablerecidivismhas progressively strippedhimofbothhis cast and
his crew; he even presumablypoisons the stagehandswho constructhis murder
machine(V. iv. 10). Thus his last scene is reduced to a fatalone-mangrandguignol
productionas the directionof the actionpasses fromBarabas to his nemesis and
rivalinteriordirector,Ferneze.

III
TheJewofMaltafocusescentrally on power,as themajorpower-brokers - Calymath,
Ferneze,del Bosco, and Barabas--competefordominance,and the minorpower-
pimp,and friars--vie
brokers--prostitute, forthewealththatwillgrantthemlimited
control.However,on one level at least,as thisessay has attemptedto demonstrate,
the dramais also centrallyconcernedwith"playing."Withintheworldof theplay,
of course,the playwrightis the quintessentialpower-broker, absolutelycontrolling
the dramaticuniversewhile also influencingthe externalworld throughthe play's
impacton the audience. In thisreading,therefore, Barabas becomes a portraitnot
only of the flawed Machiavel,who fallsbecause he becomes too involved in his
plottingand is thusovercomeby themoreskillfulMachiavel,but also oftheflawed
playwright,who failsbecause he loses his detachment,becomestoo involvedin his
plotting,producesa bad play, and is ousted by the superioractor-playwright.
Barabas'sfatalaestheticobsessionis foreshadowedin theplay's prologuethrough
Machevill'sexemplumof Phalarisas the negligenttyrant,who becomes so preoc-
cupied with"letters"thathe ignorestheproperuse of forceforprotection("strong-
built citadels") and thus is overthrownby envious great ones (Prologue,22-26).
Striking unitethePhalarisoflegendwiththeBarabasofthedrama.Both
similarities
prototypesof crueltyand guile, indulgingin similartypesof atrocities,become so
absorbed in the "arts" (Phalariswithbelles lettres,Barabas with play-acting)that
theycarelesslyunderestimatetheirenemies,are overthrownby "greatones" and

22For a fullerdiscussion of the degree to which Barabas parodies the passion, death, and resur-
rectionof Christ,see Deats, "Biblical Parody," 31.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 VILLAINAS PLAYWRIGHT / 387

burn to death in theirown torturemachines.23Throughthese analogies,the play

dramatizestheperilsofinvolvement and thenecessityfordetachment in bothpolitics
and playwrighting, not
therebyexemplifying only Machiavelli'spoliticaldictumsbut
Marlowe's own aestheticpractice.
In treatingtheissue of aestheticdetachment,TheJewofMaltaactivelyparticipates
in the theatricaldebate of the period, since actors'abilityto "lose themselves"in
theirpartswas alternately censuredand lauded by detractors and supportersof the
theatre.For example, Thomas Heywood, in his An Apology forActors,seekingto
praise the actor'sabilityto "become the part," ratherineptly citesthe legend of the
Romanemperorand sometimesamateuractor,JuliusCaesar,who becameso carried
away by passion in his portrayalof Herculesthathe actuallyslew the unfortunate
actorplayingtheroleofthemessengerLychas.24I. G., in his Refutation oftheApology
forActors, adduces the very same to
episode castigate the lack of control and de-
tachmenthe sees as characteristic of the professionof acting,and, by implication,
also ofplaywrighting.25 Thus boththepro-theatre and anti-theatre factionsused the
same anecdoteto buttresstheirargumentsforor againstthe stage.
Froma metadramatic perspective,therefore, Barabas'sdazzlingalthoughdoomed
productionsand performances not only stressthe simultaneouspleasure and peril
ofdramaticart,butalso illustratethepowerofthetheatre,showinghow dramamay
not onlyreflectbut also activelyconstructwhat is perceivedas reality.In so doing,
the play anticipatesone of the centraltenetsof both new historicism and cultural
materialism.Thereciprocalrelationship betweensocietyand culturalformsis affirmed
by JonathanDollimorewho argues thatliteraturenot only representsbut actually
intervenesin history.26MaryBethRose further asserts:

[D]ramanotonlyarticulatesand representscultural
change,butalso participates
in it;
seeksnotonlytodefine,
butactively togenerate,andin somecasestocontain,cultural
conflict.
Farfromactingas a fictional
reflection
ofan imaginedexternal thatcan
reality
somehowbegraspedas true,thedramais constituent
ofthatreality
andinseparable
from
it.27

23 Phalaris was a Sicilian

tyrantof the 6th centuryb.c. who gained a notorious immortalityby
allegedly roasting his enemies in a brazen bull fittedwith mechanical pipes throughwhich the
victim'sagonized groansresounded like thebellowingofan animal. Legend suggeststhatthe sadistic
ruleroccasionallyvaried his torturetacticsby scalding his adversariesin cauldrons of oil, and other
tales involve him in a number of treacherous stratagems,including several massacres occurring
during feasts. Accordingto tradition,derived most probablyfromthe forgedLettersofPhalaris,the
tyrant'sonly amelioratingfeaturewas his interestin belle-lettres,a virtuethat Machevill censures
as contributingto his downfall. Accounts differconcerningPhalaris's eventual overthrow-some
attributehis fallto a popular uprisingwhile others suggest a coup by a rival oligarchy.For various
accounts of Phalaris's notorious career, see Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Officiis, trans. WalterMiller
(Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1956), 193, 297, 299; Ovid, Tristia,trans. L. R. Lind (Athens:
Universityof Georgia Press, 1975), 81; Desiderius Erasmus, TheEducationofa ChristianPrince,trans.
Lester K. Born (New York: Octagon Press, 1965), 201; Edward A. Freeman, TheHistoryofSicilyfrom
theEarliestTimes(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891), vol. 2, 63-79.
24 Heywood, Apology forActors,E3.
25 I. G., A Refutation
oftheApologyforActors,28. Barishalso discusses thisincidentin TheAntitheatrical
Prejudice,119.
26 eds. JonathanDollimore and Alan Sinfield(Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress,
PoliticalShakespeare,
1985), 10.
27 The
ExpenseofSpirit:Loveand Sexualityin EnglishRenaissanceDrama (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1988), 2.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
388 / Sara MunsonDeats and Lisa S. Starks

StephenGreenblattrefersto the power of literatureto "produce, shape, and reor-

ganize" cultureas "energy."28 Barabas, we submit,embodies this type of shaping
energy, and many of the episodes in TheJewofMaltamicrocosmically illustratethe
potency of the drama in generating and constructing
perceivedreality.
In TheJewofMalta,fictionallifeoftenimitatesfictionalart,withBarabas's various
improvisations frequently notonlyanticipatingbut also oftenprecipitating theroles
and actionsthathe is laterconstrainedto perform.Initially,Barabaspubliclymourns
his loss of wealthwhile secretlygloatingon his hidden cache; later,he learnsthat
his fictionhas become an actualityand thathe has been transformed intothevictim
thathe had earlierplayed. In the followinginteriordrama,Barabas feignsthe part
of the aggrievedfather,castingAbigailas thepenitentconvert,and thefriarsas the
eager gulls; later,he, his daughter,and the friarswill play these roles in earnest.
Soon after,in his hyperbolicvauntingcontestwithIthamore,Barabasimpersonates
the "monsterousJew" stereotypeinto which he will eventuallydevelop, actually
creatinghimselffromfragmentsof anti-semitic literatureand legend. Finally,Bar-
abas's sham death presages his actual catastrophe,and he becomes the dead man
thathe had earlierpretendedto be. Thus Barabasis continuallyconstructedby the
roles thathe chooses or is forcedto assume.

By demonstrating the power of the theatreto constructperceivedreality,TheJew

ofMalta supports the assertionsof both the detractorsand the supportersof the
stage, forboth the and the defendersof the theatreaffirmed
attackers the abilityof
thedramato influencehumanbehaviorand theway humanbeingsperceivereality.
These debatersalternatelyextolledand vilifiedthe drama forits power to move
audiences to emulatethe vices and virtuesthattheysaw enacted on the stage and
thus throughmimicryto create themselvesin the images of dramaticfictions.29
Barabas,functioning simultaneouslyas playwright, actor,and audience of his own
theatrics,both createsfictionsand is createdby them.Throughthisreciprocalmi-
mesis,therefore, theplaybothacknowledgesand interrogates thepotencyofitsown
medium.
In stressingtherelationshipofTheJewofMaltanotonlyto theantitheatrical debate
of the period but also to the laterinteriorplaywrightsstrutting across
and fretting
the Elizabethanand Jacobeanstages, we are claimingforMarlowe's play some of
the same generativepower that we have creditedto Barabas's internaldramas.
Marlowe's play, by debutingthe Vice-Machiavalas playwright,profoundlyinflu-
enced thedevelopmentof theEnglishdrama,while throughitsprobingexploration
of the potentialpower, pleasure,and perilof the stage, it also introducedinto the
debate the ambivalencetowardits own mediumthatwould pervade
antitheatrical
the drama of the followingdecades. Therefore,just as the Jew'sinteriorplays not
onlyparticipatein the formation of theirproteancreatorBarabasbut also intervene

28
ShakespeareanNegotiations(Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1988), 6.
29
See the pamphleteerscited above in note 6. See also F. Clement (PetieSchole,translatedat the
end of The Summeof theConference [1584], Sig. Xx2v,quoted in Ringler,StephenGosson,70), who
warns against "common playes," which have the power to "metamorphize,transfigure,deforme,
pervertand alter the hartsof theirhaunters,"and Heywood, ApologyforActors,G-G3,who praises
the power of the theatreto move spectatorsto virtue. See also Barish, The Antitheatrical
Prejudice,
118-20.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 VILLAINAS PLAYWRIGHT / 389

in the politicsof Malta, so Marlowe's play not onlyparticipatesin the formation of

the contemporary drama but also intervenesin the theatrical
politicsof the period.
Justas Barabas's manyimprovisations both shape and are shaped by the actionsof
Fernezeand thecitizensofMalta,so Marlowe'splaybothgeneratesand is generated
by the dramaticconventionsand theatricalcontroversies ofitstime,simultaneously
drawingon and influencing heritageand socialmilieu.Moreover,
bothitsliterary its
like Barabas, who delightedIthamorewith the well-crafted plots and skilledper-
formancesof his interiordramas, TheJewofMalta, partrevengetragedyand part
satiriccomedy,would providethepatternfora numberoftherevengetragediesand
satiriccomedies starringthe villainas playwright, whichthroughoutthe following
decades would captivatetheatricalaudiences and doubtlesswin the accolades, "so
neatlyplottedand so well performed."

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.28 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:38:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions