1

For all the critical debate about the subversiveness of Marlowes plays, there is nothing in either
Doctor Faustus or The Jew of Malta that is not fully consistent with a Christian world view. Discuss.

Marlowes alleged homosexuality and atheism has vested him with a reputation for the
unorthodox and has led a lot of critics to interpret the plays as subversive. This might be
considered strange since, on a first reading, there is nothing obviously rebellious or
irreverent in the plays. In Doctor Faustus the hero is punished for denying God and
embracing Lucifer, and in The Jew of Malta Barabas who embodies, being a Jew, anti-
christian values like desire for material wealth and a love for Machiavellian plotting finally
meets his death. In this sense, the plays seem to present a Christian point of view.
However, there is something subversive in the plays, which can be revealed through careful
close reading. This subversiveness is effected in such a subtle way that, it could be said,
affects the audience in a subconscious level.
In Doctor Faustus, which could be read as a kind of a morality play, there is undeniably
a Christian world view. This kind of reading sees Faustus as representing Mankind, whose
inherent desire for knowledge and power over Nature are assisted or taken advantage of by
personified diabolic forces like Mephistopheles and lead the hero astray. This is obvious
when Faustus gets bored with the limitations of the scholarly branches of human knowledge
and strives to find something higher. When he reads in the Bible that the reward of sin is
death he omits the passage about forgiveness. Later in the play we learn that it was
Mephistophillis who led his eye off track. Furthermore, he does not heed the Good Angel
and the Old Mans advice not to abandon God and he does not pay attention to the fact that
Mephistophilis tells him that he is unable to hurt the Old Man because of his great faith. As
a result, it is not surprising, within this conext, that Faustus ends up in hell.
However, there are certain elements that undercut this kind of orthodox christian
reading. Firstly, there is an ambiguity concerning the final scene. Although the audience,
on one hand, might feel a sort of catharsis seeing the aberrant Faustus being condemned to
hell, there is, on the other hand, at least on a subcoscious level, the sense that justice has
not been done. Faustus seems to have been punished in such a terrible way although he did
not use the power acquired from Satan to perform anything evil. We merely see him
performing pranks on the Pope and Benvolio. Secondly, in the opening chorus Faustus is
resembled to Ikarus, whose desire to fly higher than it is permissible leads to his death, and
we learn that heavens cospired his overthrow. This poses the question why God should
conspire to bring Faustus down. This question leads to another kind of reading.
This alternative reading considers the play as a kind of parable for the fight for
intellectual freedom and the inherent human desire to overstep boundaries with the Bad
Angel externalising his progressive impulses. This, of course, points to the the ambiguity
conected with mankinds predicament. On the one hand, human beings are provided by God
or Nature with the power of reasoning, which inevitably lead them to a desire to explain
the world around them and ultimately by gaining control over it to become a sort of demi-
 2

gods. This becomes obvious in the opening scene when Faustus has reached an intellectual
point where the current modes of philosophical and scientific thought are not sufficient for
him. He craves for a greater subject to fit his wit. He realises that no matter what he can
do he is just a man and he wishes to make men live eternally, / or being dead, raise them
to life again. So the possibility, offered by Lucifer and his desciple, Mephistophilis, of
becoming a sort of demi-god and be resolved of all ambiguities concerning life is something
which few men, having Faustus intellectual powers, would be able to resist. The fact that
he does not resolve himself of the ambiguities of existence might be taken to point to the
inability of the human mind to cope with this kind of power that Faustus managed to
acquire.
However, the most subversive element of the play is related to what constituteds
Faustus mistake. In his effort to free himself from constraints imposed by God he enslaves
himself to Lucifer by signing a contract to sell his soul. Faustus mistakenly believes that
Mephistophilis will become his servant ready to perform whatever he desires. The fact that
Mephistophilis repeatedly denies to fulfil his wishes as in the case when he refuses to
provide him with a wife knowing that a wife can inspire love in him, Mephistophilis is only
willing to offer him different women to satisfy only his carnal lust. When Mephistophilis
avoids answering Faustus question about the creation of the world, he realises, too late,
that he has been caught in a trap for which he is partly responsible. Through all this,
Marlowe points to the fact that in the issue concerning the fundamental opposition of the
human existence - God versus Lucifer or Good versus Evil - human beings have to accept
the necessity of both elements and not superimpose the one over the other. This could be
taken to constitute the main subversive element of the play because it overthrows a
fundamental christian belief that Satan or Evil is something to opposed to and not
accepted.
In the same way in The Jew of Malta Barabas, being a Jew and consequently an
outsider of the Christian community, embodies values that the Christianity is supposed to
scorn. Barabas is passionately involved in the collection of material wealth and he delights
in Machiavellian plotting and lying. In consequence, it seems just from a Christian point of
view that this deviant behaviour should be punished in such a cruel way at the end of the
play. However, this mode of reading seems to ignore different aspects of the play, which
make it even more radical in its subversion of common beliefs concerning the Christian
State than Doctor Faustus.
The most important element that points to an alternative reading of the play is that,
although Machiavel informs the audience in the introduction that they will be presented
with the tragedy of Jew, the play, in reality, is a satire. The narrative of the play seems to
be a kind of lie even to the point of being a burlesque. The brisk succession of scenes is
exaggerated like in the case of Barabas plotting schemes which succeed each other rapidly
or in such scenes as when he is thought to be dead and in a few minutes he is found alive
and kicking ready to continue his schemes. Another important element is that the plot
 3

never requires that Barabas should remember his complicated lies, which is something that
hardly ever occurs in real life. This is done by Marlowe in his effort to show that dirty
politics and lying pervade all aspects of social life irrespective of social strata, nations or
religions.
The subtle way in which Marlowe manages to subvert the audiences expectations and
beliefs is done from the opening scenes. The audience, bearing certain misconceptions and
prejudices about Machiavellis theories, is led to be negatively biased towards Barabas, who
is presented as Machiavels disciple. Seeing Barabas in the opening scene counting his heaps
of money, which are described as the blessings promised to the Jews, and scorning
Christian poverty they deem Barabas as an enemy. However, their expectation that the
Christian Maltese Governor, Ferneze, will counteract the materialism and illicit private
policy of the Machiavelian Barabas is frustrated in the following scene. Ferneze seems
interested in maintaining his worldly power rather than doing what is right and moral.
When Barabas comments on the Christian policy, which deprives him of his possessions, he
seems to be speaking not only to the audience but for them, expressing their sense of
having their hopes frustrated. This sympathy, nevertheless, is reversed again when Barabas
hypocritical behaviour in front of the other Jews is exposed. This ironic reversal seems to
be the fundamental element of the plays universe.
So, the audience witnesses a play where every incident bears a consequential
relationship to a lie without being able to find an alternative moral pole. In this cobweb of
lies Barabas seems to lie and plot mainly for the pleasure of it. This pathological state of
his becomes evident when he has no hesitations in plotting the death of his own daughter.
For him this mode of existence bears more excitement than a static life. On the other
hand, the Christian lying and plotting has more to do with the acquisition or the
maintaining of power. Ferneze lies to the Turks in order to be completely free in the
governing of Malta and he lies to Barabas to regain the authority.
Of course, there are other other ways in which the Christians fall short of the principles
they are supposed to live by. Firstly, Ferneze and Katharine, instead of mourning their
childrens death, talk immediately of taking revenge, which is hardly a Christian virtue.
Ferneze even comes to the point of showing disrespect for the Barabas body when he is
thought to be dead. Secondly, Christian hypocrisy also touches upon religious matters like
the sacrament of confession, which Friar Bernardine unscrupulously violates. Thirdly, both
Friar Bernardine and Friar Jacome are easily tempted by Barabas offer to give them his
money in order to be saved and which brings about their death. Finally, another interesting
fact is the adoption of slavery as Katharines and Don Mathias visit to slave bazaar shows.
So when Ferneze takes over the role of the Machiavelian performer the audience is made to
take over the role of the Machiavelian commentator, who told them that though some
speak against [his] books, yet will they read [him] and that might first made kings, and
laws were most sure when they were written in blood. So for those spectators who see
 4

irony encompassing Christians, Jews, and Turks alike, religion would be mocked as the
childish toy the Machiavelian commentator claims to be.