Just as Barabas, Ithamore, Bellamira, and Pilia-Borza conspire against each other, so, too, do Ferneze, Calymath, and Del Bosco strategize in the name of "policy." Calymath's ultimatum—that Ferneze pay ten years' worth of tribute or Turkey will invade Malta—is nothing more than a trumped up bribe. Marlowe thus compares politics to a web of commercial deals. Although Ferneze trumpets that "[h]onour is bought with blood, and not with gold," it is clear that he is motivated by financial concerns. Ferneze's decision to break the league with Calymath and sell Turkish slaves in the marketplace attests that mercenary interests determine state policy. Del Bosco's comment that the governor can "keep the gold" if he goes to war against Turkey, further suggests the importance of money in international politics.
This same "desire of gold" motivates Bellamira, Pilia-Borza, and Ithamore (although the slave professes to bribe Barabas in the name of love). Marlowe thus compares the acquisitiveness of statesmen—particularly aristocratic statesmen such as Ferneze—with the cupidity of common criminals. Ironically, Barabas is the only character whose crimes are motivated by more than a need for money. In the final act, Marlowe shows how Barabas's essentially motiveless crimes affect the course of international politics. When the protagonist becomes governor, the nature of his plots remains the same—to conspire murder—except that these schemes are played out in a larger arena. Ultimately, Barabas's goals do not vary much from Ferneze's; while the protagonist seeks to profit by Calymath's death, the governor attempts to gain by his capture. /ANSWER.
Suggested Essay Questions
Why is Ithamore so quick to scheme against his master? Are we to believe that it is all because of the slave's love for Bellamira, or is a deeper avarice to blame?
What role does Abigail play within the text—is she a tragic heroine, a disloyal daughter, or a victim to the prejudice of her peers?
Religious and racial differences dominate The Jew of Malta. Is Marlowe's treatment of these differences ultimately even-handed or biased?
Does Barabas receive divine retribution in the play's final scene, or is Barabas undermined by the same duplicity and Machiavellian double-crossing he used to wreak vengeance on others?