Talk:The Jew of Malta

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tobymsinger. Peer reviewers: Ee1013, Opalanietet.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

• Not sure why "Barabas the Jew" is highlighted in red at the bottom of the page. That is an existing page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.33.111 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 November 2006

Critical commentary

"Meanwhile, very few of the play's other characters show significant redeeming qualities. Although Barabas's daughter, Abigail, is a possible exception most characters in the play are selfish, greedy and unscrupulous. Even Abigail's becoming a nun is open for interpretation- at least initially- as a means to spite her father. The play ridicules Christian monks and nuns for engaging in forbidden sexual practices, and portrays a pair of friars trying to outbid each other to bring Barabas (and his wealth) into their order. Malta's Christian governor, in addition to his unfair treatment of the city's Jews, is revealed to be a grasping opportunist who seizes any chance to get an advantage. The Turkish slave Ithamore is somewhat idiotic and has no qualms about getting drunk when offered wine (and sex) by a prostitute, and aside from him there are the Turkish invaders who plan to make the city's defenders (the Knights of Malta) into galley slaves."

This seems very open to dispute, or at the best is a highly personal reading of the play. Is the Turkish prince really that rotten a person? Or the two sons, Lodowick and Matthias? Or the mother of Matthias, Katherine? I would quibble too about the governor, I think the description of him here is a little cartoonish compared to Marlowe's actual sketch. This section has a lot of loaded words and appears to be trying to stack the deck sometimes, and some of the traits it's chosen for whipping seem like irrelevancies --- somehow, Ithamore getting drunk is more indicative of his bad side than his killing people or blackmailing his former boss. The section after that beginning The play is unusual also seems poorly worded and confused in its reasoning to me. It is hard to write critical commentary that isn't a little idiosyncratic, but some of the blanket statements in here seem to go a touch beyond that.Eupolis 17:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did wonder that about the Turkish prince myself, when I read it. On the other hand there is no gainsaying the fact that he and his men are fully prepared to turn the Maltese into galley-slaves if they don't pay up. And I only added that bit about Ithamore's getting drunk myself because technically, Muslims aren't supposed to- not that murder and blackmail aren't frowned upon in the Islam faith as well, but with the concept of jihad (that, admittedly, Marlowe probably wouldn't have known about) and the fact that the character is brought into slavery before Turkey and Malta are even at war in the play, makes it perhaps more understandable when you see that the play is set at a point when three religions are only just at the pique of tolerating one another. And the fact that the govenor is wiling to sell allies as slaves does, I think, accurately suggest "a grasping opportunist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.33.111 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 6 November 2006

It does? In that scene in question, the governor at first refuses to allow the sale of Del Bosco's Turkish slaves because it would break the league and lead to Malta's ruin, and he does this despite being opposed by his own knights. He only agrees to Del Bosco's demand after he's told that Spain claims to have title to Malta, and "means quickly to expel you hence" unless Malta goes along and sides with Spain. How are you being a grasping opportunist if you make your decision at the point of a gun? I don't disagree that he has opportunistic traits, but I also feel uneasy with the blanket characterizations of him, which is why the quibble. I think Marlowe's portrayal was a little more complex than that. As for Ithamore, no point is made of his drinking, and if it was against Islamic law hardly anybody in his audience would have known about it. And as for the Turkish prince, though Barabas is of the opinion that the Turks let the tribute pay go lax so they could have an excuse to invade Malta, when the Turks are asked for an extra month to collect the money the prince courteously grants it. I feel like this text is trying a little too hard to impose a "they're all bad people" reading on the play. You know it's gone too far when even Abigail is just a possible exception to the thesis presented here. I guess her sincere love for Matthias doesn't count for much. Eupolis 17:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ah well, I didn't add the part you quoted, merely agreed with it, and added the part about Ihamore's getting drunk. Anyone is free to add to it further... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.33.111 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 November 2006

Abigail/Abigall

To the poster who's been repeatedly making changes to Abigail's name, without explanation. If you weren't aware, there have been repeated requests for you to talk about it here and/or explain your reasoning. Let's see what can be done. Eupolis 23:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My edition of the play reads "Abigall". The introduction suggests this is because her actions "gall" her father. This does, perhaps, suggest over-analysis on the part of the editor, but I only changed it back because that's how it reads in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.33.111 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 15 November 2006

My print edition calls her "Abigail", as does every digital edition that I can locate. Ben W Bell talk 11:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

---

My edition has an interesting note about it:
Abigall- The name is translated in the Geneva Bible as 'the fathers joye'; in I Sam. 25 she is the peacemaking wife of Nabal, and some biblical comentators have seen her as the type of Jew who is converted to Christianity (cf. Hunter, 225 n. 55 = 80 n. I).
Directly underneath is a note on Ithimore:
"One of the sons of Aaron was named Ithamar (Exod. 6:23)"
Considering Barabas' name originating from events in Luke and Mark (Barabbas), I'd say this builds a strong case for the Biblical derivation (Abigall) being the correct one.

The Complete Works of Christopher Marlowe, Clarentdon Press, Oxford, 1995 (Edited by Roma Gill)
Hulbs 18:33, 9 May 2007

It's rather by the board which is "the correct one," since Abigail and Abigall are the same thing, one is just an archaic form which is uniformly modernized in modern spelling critical editions. Unless it's decided to render all the article's quotations from the play into Ye Olde Spellynge it doesn't make any sense to prefer the archaic when professional scholars do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.197.124 (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The merge proposal (to merge Barabas the Jew into this article) dates from 21 March 2007. There has been no discussion, but it seems extremely appropriate, and I think it should go ahead. Wareh 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Bigturtle 15:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Significance

To help with this article, I suggest the addition of a "Themes" section and the removal of the current "Significance" section, which would allow "Significance" to become a space for the impact of the play on future works (such as Merchant). This would have the added benefit of removing the original research tag.

This would be my first edit, and the orientation training suggests that I should make my intention to substantially edit the article known in advance. Thus, my proposed edit is in my sandbox, if anyone is interested in having a look. Sean W Gill (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Many thanks to Sean W. Gill, who removed some of the OR in the article. There were two further speculative paragraphs wholly without reference which I have also deleted, and have now removed the template at the top dating from 2009. One of those offending paragraphs was at the head of a character study of Barabas. What followed appeared to provide a better plot summary than the one under that heading in the article, so I placed it there instead and thus eliminated a repetitious section.

Another section simply catalogued quotations from the play in later literary works without in any way demonstrating why this was significant, or else made claims that other works were allusions to it with no valid reference. Some of this counted as WP:OR and the rest came under the category MOS:CULTURALREFS. The section was unencyclopedic and had become a dumping ground for trivia. Those guidelines therefore justify its deletion. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me partly disagree... I do not see how one can consider being quoted verbatim by T. S. Eliot and Ernest Hemingway as "non significant"! If one needs sources, a quick Google search shows high significance, just the first result: [1]. Thanks for the attention.Popop (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

'Significant' in this case means whether the quotations advance knowledge of the play. The fact that it is still reprinted and discussed by scholars is proof enough of its fame. That it has been quoted by hundreds of people famous in their own field is irrelevant unless they have something new to say about it. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I confess I do not understand, but I am not really familiar with the english version of wikipedia. Do you mean that in a page about a song we should not mention its covers? Here things are not qualitatively different, you see, (very notable) writers quoting other writers... Anyway, I read in the guideline you quoted: It is preferable to develop a normal article section... that give a logically presented overview (often chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres, for various purposes and audiences. Anyway all this is not particularly relevant for me, thank you.Popop (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of the deleted section, apart from the first example, every other was of use by recent writers of just one passage which can be found in any dictionary of quotations. The presentation was in the form of an unbulleted list and demonstrated no knowledge of the whole play, which is the subject of the article here. It was not explained in what way this use was significant. With regard to the other line used by Eliot, it was as an epigraph to a work which makes no further reference to the play and was of no significance either. Where then is the "logically developed overview" arising out of this list of trivialities that you are arguing for? As you say, you are new to Wikipedia. Your best approach, apart from familiarising yourself with what the guidelines actually mean and why they were drawn up in the first place, would be to remind yourself that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should give a succinct and scholarly overview of each subject. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Merchant of Venice template

@Michael Bednarek: Can you please explain why The Jew of Malta should be in the The Merchant of Venice category. That category contains only the wikipedia pages for that play's characters (plus the play itself). If being in the template were enough, that category page would need to have a lot more in it. Even the other pages in that section of the template (Gesta Romanorum and Il Pecorone) are not categorized this way. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 23:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The category:The Merchant of Venice contains much more than the play and its characters. Almost all of the entries in Template:The Merchant of Venice are categorised this way, and those that aren't, like the ones you mentioned, ought to be removed from the template because their relation to the play are marginal whereas the connection for The Jew of Malta is more substantial. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

The organization of the article is fantastic. The visual appearance, and the specific sections of which the article was divided created an easy and enjoyable read. The neutral tone, despite what seems to be a pretty offensive piece of theater, was impressive. It also seemed like the citation of source material was well done.

I would like the beginning, or introduction, to the article to be a little more comprehensive about the significance of this play, an intro that touches on, or summarizes, the following sections without getting into the details. In addition, as hideously racist as this play seems, is there anybody who thinks that the calls of racism and anti-Semitism on this play are overblown? Does anybody think this play has something redeeming to offer, like people seem to think "The Merchant of Venice" has?

Opalanietet (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Opalanietet