Comparison of Marlowe's Barabas and Jonson's Volpone (Studying the main characters from "Volpone" and "The Jew of Malta")

Christopher Marlowe?s The Jew of Malta, written around 1590, sh ars m each fire comparableities with Ben Jonson?s 1605 play Volpone. some(prenominal) works follow a akin(predicate) narrative structure and also shargon common themes and graphic type types. Greed as a char fountizationer trait is dependable altogethery important in the plot of twain plays, as be wit, deception, and questionable or absent morality In f come, Jonson?s reference point Volpone is named from the Italian word for ?fox,? telling us dear a demeanor that ruse and slyness argon his defining purposeistics. both(prenominal) of the plays focus on a primary(prenominal) contribution who uses his recognition and ability to grass as a instruction to touch his covetousness. It is in the main character references of the plays (Volpone and Barabas) that we hold in the superlative similarity amongst the deuce works. The similarities, as well as excellent differences mingled with these twain characters and plays, depict us some of the dividing and defining characteristics of the playwrights themselves. two Barabas and Volpone atomic number 18 driven to their questionable moral decisions In these two characters, we see workforce who possess an uncanny ability to wander n proterozoic e rattlingone they come into contact with. They lie and disposition spurious promises to many contrastive community, and are able to asseverate their webs of fraudulence intact when one mis intromit, or one someone nurture the truth, would completely destroy their intricate plans. This is perhaps crush prove by Volpone, who is able to keep quadruple different people convinced that they will twist heir to his fortune, fleck store gifts and wealthinessiness from each of them through fall come forward. His scheming involves pretense stark illness, disguises, convincing rhetoric, and a really helpful retainer in Mosca. If any one of the quartet ?birds of p rey? who unavoidableness his fortune were t! o exhaust come forward the truth, Volpone would lose e realthing. In The Jew of Malta, Barabas is a rich Judaic merchant who has his assets seized by the government. He is enraged by this, and plans to remunerate his wealth and exact r rasege on the Governor Firneze. He also utilizes disguise, lies and false promises to everybody involved, and likewise enlists the help of opposites (his daughter Abigail and his severing ones back Ithamore), but ends up sweep awaying both of them in the extension of his scheme. As Volpone and The Jew of Malta draw to a dear, the similarity of the plots continues as both characters attain what they proclivityd. Barabas regains his wealth and becomes governor of Malta later onward component the Turkish Army conquer the island, replacing his foe Firneze in the process. Volpone escapes twilight afterwards an amazing deception of the Venetian courts by his servant Mosca, and is able to continue bleeding wealth out of his four dupes . However, the elaborate schemes of both characters ultimately fail, be bowel movement they walk out their plans too far. Ignoring Mosca?s advice that they should rest after their close call, Volpone continues the deception by feigning death and naming his servant the heir allowing him to fully bring low his dupes. In doing this however, Volpone?s power and wealth is usurped by the even more cunning Mosca. Volpone is on the verge of losing everything, and the only way to regain maintain is to confess in front of the court, which results in his life imprisonment. Barabas, sooner of cosmos satiate when named Governor of Malta, strikes a deal with his enemy Firneze to take part in a scheme to butcher Calymath, the Turkish leader who he had fair(a) aided to victory. Firneze plays along, but deceives Barabas in the end and consumes him to fall into the madly trap planned for Calymath. In both plays, the characters? voracity drives them to pass water intricate and win ning schemes, but also becomes their d avowfall as th! ey cannot be cognitive content with their gains when the scheme reaches the breaking point. The sympathy of the listening toward these two characters is very similar as well. In both plays, the main character is initially back up by the audience. In the early stages of The Jew of Malta, we feel that Barabas has genuinely been wronged by the government, and we support his desire for the reformation of his wealth and his plans for strike back. Also, he seems to us, one of the only upright characters in the play. He lies to former(a) characters, but he is preferably up-front and square(a)(p) in explaining his motives to the audience, while we see rampant deceit from the characters he is plotting against. In Volpone, we understand that the character is acting completely out of greed, with no higher motives. However, we delight in the enlargement and improbableness of his ruse. We smelling past the questionable morality of his duping four different characters into g iving him their possessions; in fact we support it be receive the other characters are obsessed with their greed understand that they are world taken utility of. However, our sympathy leaves these characters when their bodily processs become too terrible to look past. Volpone attempts to rape Celia?one of the only innocent characters in the play?and subsequently has her put in jail after deceiving the court. With Barabas, the honesty he shows the audience cannot counterweigh the increasing death-toll he causes. He also assassinates an innocent character: his daughter Abigail. Along with this truly horrible act, we see him: convince two young men to kill each other, poison all the nuns in a convent, kill a priest and lay the blame on another, kill his servant along with two others, and plot a final scheme in which he will kill the Turkish commander and all of his soldiers. By the fourth act in each play, we want these characters to fail, even though we had back up them earlier. Even with all of these close similarities, t! here are differences to be seen amid the two main characters. The first of these lies in the rivalry and purpose that lies behind their schemes. In Volpone, we see the main character?s aim when he discusses his gold in the enterp short-change lines. ?Yet, I glory / More in the cunning beneficial of my wealth / Than in the glad possession? (I.i.30-32). From the beginning, we see that Volpone finds look upon only in his ability to deceive and take opt of people, not in the calculable results of that deception. This attitude of Volpone?s is agreeable throughout the play. For Barabas however, he begins the play seemingly content with the wealth he has, although he is certainly greedy to get more. His enthusiasm lies in the possession of wealth. After his estate is taken from the government, he has a born(p) desire for reclamation and revenge against those who wronged him. We see a shift however, as his determination begins to come slight from greed and more from intense hatred toward everyone around him. As a Jew in Malta, he is viewed as an alien; he is stimulate by the hypocrisy of the Christians who outcast him, and kills his daughter for converting. His entertainment regarding the murders he commits or causes indicates that his sole aim is vengeance. Some of these uppity murders arrive at little apparent motive. His aim of reclaiming his wealth and strict revenge on those who took it gets swallowed up by a ?me against the universe of intervention attitude.? By the end of the play, it seems that his hatred and feelings of exile from the community cause him to want to kill everybody. This can be seen in his sack lines in the play, while he is dying in his own trap, ?I would harbor brought confusion on you all, / Damned Christian dogs, and Turkish infidels! (V.v.84-85).

Volpone does not develop this universality to his deception because he belongs to the upper class of his rules of order. His aim is only to take usefulness of a couple of targets who are easily taken reward of. Another major difference that can be seen between the characters is the theatricality with which Volpone directs his scheming. He warps the other characters as if he was a puppet-master, and takeled everybody around him with strings. This relates to the value he finds in the ?cunning wages? of wealth. While Barabas is content to kill anybody who stands in his way, it seems that Volpone would view that litigate as an undesirably simple, thuggish solution. Mosca alludes to Volpone?s deception as his ?sport.? He would find no sport in murder, unless it involved an incredibly detailed scheme to succeed. His perception of power comes from seeing himself moderate the ideas and actions of others to fulfill his desires, not in eliminating the others to ease his own fulfilment of desire. I think that the similarities and differences visible between these two characters shed light on some of the differences between the aims of Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson. Marlowe was much more willing to show disruption of the kindly ordain, as well as the take away of society?s moral codes. This is evidenced by the rise of Barabas, an outcast of society, to claim the title of governor after causing the deaths of over a dozen people. Marlowe believed the world to be very unpredictable, and believed in the power of the individual to make wide change. However, I think he also placed enormousness on the individual?s use of intelligence to control themselves and the stakes they are put in. This is why Barabas fails in the end of the play. Marlowe will translate the freedom of success to a character much(prenominal) as Tamburlaine, who comm! it his horrible deeds in the situation of war, and always made his decisions in light of that situation. Barabas however, loses his self-control. When he stayed true to his rightful, natural desires for reclamation of his wealth and revenge, he succeeds. It is when he overreaches and tries to take on the whole world that he falls dupe to being outsmarted by someone he was plotting against. Ben Jonson, on the other hand, was very concerned with keeping the social order. Marlowe viewed the rules and ethics of society as artificial bondage against freedom, Jonson saw societal institutions as really keeping things the way they should be. This is evidenced in Volpone. The main character fails because he exhibits insatiable greed. He cannot be content with all that he has gained, and pushes the scheme too far, which will invariably, and rightfully, cause trial within the constraints of society. Mosca is clearly the more cunning of the two schemers, and it looks as though he wil l come out on top. However, it seems that Jonson is unwilling to allow for a servant to become a member of the elite class. I think that Marlowe would have applauded Mosca?s use of his intelligence and wit, and would have allowed him to keep his wealth. Instead, Jonson depicts the social order remaining upheld; Mosca is discovered and sentenced to life imprisonment. Jonson makes the point that lawless greed will invariably end in failure, regardless of the intelligence that accompanies it. Works CitedJonson, Ben. Five Plays. unsanded York: Oxford UP, Incorporated, 1999. Marlowe, Christopher. The Complete Plays. New York: Penguin Classics, 2003. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper