Christopher Marlowe - the famous English playwright and contemporary of William Shakespeare - has suffered somewhat in terms of being overshadowed by his more famous countryman. That said Marlowe has, like Shakespeare, been the subject of much controversy over the years and has indeed been claimed on several occasions to be the 'real author' of the corpus attributed to Shakespeare.
Among the many claims that have been made regarding Marlowe; he been most persistently labelled a homosexual and an atheist. The charges that Marlowe was a homosexual are based merely on literary criticism not on any actual evidence.
In other words; the idea that Marlowe was a homosexual is based entirely on the interpretation of his written works (most pointedly 'Hero and Leander') by some modern literary types not on any suggestion from Marlowe's own time that this was the case.
To puncture this trite bit of nonsense from literary critics; we need but note that in Marlowe's 'Edward II' the effeminate homosexual Piers Gaviston is continually pilloried by Queen Isabella (who is the heroine of the play) and the English barons. Indeed Gaviston is the villain of Marlowe's 'Edward II'; so one wonders why a supposed 'homosexual' would vilify another homosexual, but yet 'celebrate homosexuality' in his 'Hero and Leander'?
The simple fact is that he likely wouldn't especially at a time when sodomy was subject to righteous hatred and swift punishment by the general public, intellectuals and the political elite alike.
Similarly the charge of atheism against Marlowe results not from solid evidence, but rather rumour with it being the product of the rumour mill started by socially conservative theatrical rivals to Marlowe such as Thomas Kyd and Thomas Nash. (1)
This charge - as both David Riggs (2) and Park Honan (3) note - is probably based on the intellectual prism through which Marlowe, like Shakespeare, viewed religion as a series of mystical paradoxes, which would have seemed 'atheism' to many at the time, but was in reality more a philosophical version of conventional theological ideas. (4)
The problem is that when a literary critic gets an idea that someone 'might' have believed something remotely fashionable then they simply go hunting for 'references' to it in the author's works. This obviously results in both selection bias and the author having their conclusion in mind a priori, which renders the whole schema of their argument suspect regardless of whether their subject did or did not hold such views, because of the methodology they have adopted in their research.
As regarding Marlowe this is seen - as Della Hilton notes - (5) in that immediately as his atheism was suggested by noting the claims of Kyd and Nash. Then authors began quote mining Marlowe's corpus for 'evidence' of his atheism; resulting in their drawing attention to his two-part drama 'Tamburlaine' and the opening of 'The Jew of Malta' as evidence of his rejection of theism.
Essentially the logic of the literary types on this point is simply absurd, because they are trying to argue the existence of something that cannot be definitely proven without specific verified statements by Marlowe or his friends, but rather trying to do so by implication and conjecture in regards to what he 'really means' in his works.
This process suggests more about Marlowe's literary interpreters than about the man himself and is likely merely a reflection of their personal biases than anything to do with the man under consideration.
A similar situation is obvious in regards to Marlowe's comments on jews in his works, but primarily those found in 'The Jew of Malta'.
This play is deeply unsettling to literary critics who see in Marlowe a great playwright; the equal and in many ways the inspiration of Shakespeare. What they might call the 'crude anti-Semitism' of 'The Jew of Malta' is antithetical to their view of Marlowe as a great man.
After all how can a truly great playwright have been so viciously anti-Semitic?
Their response to this is simple: he cannot have been. We must have misunderstood him somewhere. Following this logic our literary critics promptly hare off into the sunset looking for literally any reason they can think of to claim that Marlowe's 'The Jew of Malta' isn't really anti-Semitic.
Thomas Healy claims that it is really meant to be anti-Catholic, (6) Della Hilton agrees citing the anti-clericalism throughout Marlowe's works, (7) Wilber Sanders and Park Honan assert that it is 'parody of prejudice against the jews', (8) both Erich Segal and Judith Weil think that it is really a philo-Semitic work asserting that Barabbas (the jewish antagonist) is really is hero of the play, (9) while David Riggs thinks it is all about Christianity hypocrisy and avarice rather than jews. (10)
Clearly our critics cannot even agree on what Marlowe is supposed to be portraying in 'The Jew of Malta' other than it most certainly isn't anything critical of jews. Personally I would argue this is merely wishful thinking on their part since I prefer - unlike literary critics - to deal with what people say rather than people may - or may not - mean unless I can providence significant contextual evidence of such.
I guess that is just my academic training as a historian in that I gravitate towards what is and not what might be in terms of interpretation. Indeed on a personal level I would rather leave the facts to speak for themselves and not engage in the pseudo-intellectual lunacy of trying to interpret away beliefs and statements that I don't personally like.
The folly of 'interpreting' Marlowe's 'The Jew of Malta' in innumerable ways other than as a straight out anti-jewish work is evident when we note the obvious problems in these 'interpretations'.
Healy and Hilton's case doesn't even address why a jew should have been chosen as the central character and let alone why he was portrayed in such negative terms in the first place. Simply put: if 'The Jew of Malta' is meant to be piece of anti-Catholic propaganda, and it certainly contains plenty of common anti-Catholic Protestant jibes and gripes, then why include a jew at all?
After all the term 'Jew' in Elizabethan England was a form of miscellaneous abuse (11) and jews proper were widely suspected of being involved in dishonest dealing and collaborating in plots with the Islamic enemies of Christendom. (12) Why not a Protestant being persecuted by the Spanish authorities or some such? Why is 'The Jew of Malta' so virulently anti-Semitic as opposed to being superficially so?
It simply doesn't make any sense what-so-ever to see 'The Jew of Malta' as an anti-Catholic theatrical production.
Similarly in Sanders and Honan's claim that 'The Jew of Malta' is a parody of anti-jewish prejudice; we note that it literally requires taking a mirror to everything Marlowe writes of Barabbas and interpreting him as meaning the opposite of what he actually says. (13)
This is at least somewhat consistent, but once again there is no original justification advanced by Sanders and Honan for reading Marlowe backwards. That is just how Sanders and Honan wish to read Marlowe and not how Marlowe meant 'The Jew of Malta' to be read.
One also wonders why only one element of the plot - that directly involving Barabbas - is to be interpreted the inverse way? As there is no actual reason in terms of the evidence to do this; then quite frankly Sanders and Honan's argument is simply redundant and a rather partisan attempt to twist 'The Jew of Malta' from its status as an anti-Semitic work to being a philo-Semitic one.
As to Segal and Weil's assertion that Barabbas is the real hero of 'The Jew of Malta'. This can be similarly dealt with given that once again they don't have any basis for originally making this reading of the text other than in the interpretation of much later literary critics.
Riggs' claim that Christian avarice is the target of Marlowe's ire in 'The Jew of Malta' at least bears the stamp of some kind of plausibility given that the Catholic authorities of Malta and the Spanish are not depicted as wholly blameless or lacking in avarice. However that being said once again this could read just as easily - as Healy and Hilton have in fact done - as being an anti-Catholic screed.
The defect of Riggs' assertion is once again the simple fact that Barabbas is depicted as being the epitome of evil. He is not a comedic evil type of character either, but rather one of a malignant Machiavellian type. Barabbas kills priests, nuns, women, children and even his own allies in different (and often horrible) ways to achieve his ends. Those ends are - as Marlowe explicitly says - not for the domination of Christian or Turk, but rather for the domination of the jews over the gentiles.
Barabbas is not some kind of superficially evil villain, but the epitome of evil in the deepest possible sense. In many ways he reminds us of the infamous character of Jud Suss Oppenheimer of the 1940 film 'Jud Suss' in his addiction to intrigue, power and murder in aid of the increase in power and influence of the jews.
It is also worth noting that the entire argument of all these latter day interpreters of Marlowe are all predicated on the idea that the audience would necessarily 'suspend judgement' when viewing 'The Jew of Malta'. (14)
This however is nonsense as Marlowe's plays were some of the best attended of their time (15) and 'The Jew of Malta' was used by the Earl of Essex in 1594, the year after Marlowe's death, to propagate mass anti-jewish feelings among the populace against Doctor Lopez; the jewish royal physician of Queen Elizabeth. (16) The end result was Doctor Lopez being publicly hung, drawn and quartered for treason by the English authorities for having plotted to poison the Queen.
I would count that as successfully anti-Semitic agitation: wouldn't you?
This then clearly informs us that the theatre-goers of Elizabethan England understood 'The Jew of Malta' to be an anti-jewish play playing to - what Healy has described as - 'racist fears' about jews. Not as an elaborate farce, anti-Catholic tirade, anti-hero comedy or a parody of anti-Semitic beliefs. These ideas are simply inventions of literary critics trying desperately to rescue their hero Christopher Marlowe from being labelled as having been an evil anti-Semite.
Quite frankly I'd rather listen to Marlowe's contemporaries in regards to the interpretation of his plays than the oft contradictory opinions of assorted literary critics three to four centuries later.
Simply put: 'The Jew of Malta' is an anti-Semitic play and Christopher Marlowe meant it to be just that.
References
(1) David Riggs, 2004, 'The World of Christopher Marlowe', 1st Edition, Faber and Faber: London, pp. 293-295; Della Hilton, 1977, 'Who was Kit Marlowe?: The Story of the Poet and Playwright', 1st Edition, Weidenfeld and Nicholson: London, pp. 137; 140
(2) Riggs, Op. Cit., pp. 328-329
(3) Park Honan, 2005, 'Christopher Marlowe: Poet & Spy', 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, pp. 180-181
(4) Ibid.
(5) Hilton, Op. Cit., pp. 40-41
(6) Thomas Healy, 1994, 'Christopher Marlowe', 1st Edition, Northcote House: Plymouth, p. 65
(7) Hilton, Op. Cit., p. 14
(8) Wilber Sanders, 1968, 'Dramatist as Realist: The Jew of Malta', p. 60 in Harold Bloom (Ed.), 1986, 'Christopher Marlowe', 1st Edition, Chelsea House: Philadelphia; Honan, Op. Cit., pp. 253-263
(9) Erich Segal, 1972, 'Marlowe's Schadenfreude: Barabas as Comic Hero', pp. 121-136 in Bloom, Op. Cit.; Judith Weil, 1977, 'Christopher Marlowe: Merlin's Prophet', 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 24
(10) Riggs, Op. Cit., p. 265
(11) Sanders, Op. Cit., p. 58
(12) Riggs, Op. Cit., p. 263; Healy, Op. Cit., p. 61
(13) Sanders, Op. Cit., pp. 58-76; Honan, Op. Cit., pp. 253-263
(14) Weil, Op. Cit., p. 27
(15) Hilton, Op. Cit., p. 36; Riggs, Op. Cit., pp. 261-262
(16) Hilton, Op. Cit., p. 113