Dealing with Duessa of "The Faerie Queene"

One of the most evil characters in the cantos that we've read in The Faerie Queen is Duessa, a woman whose name literally means "duplicity" and "falsity".  The amount of evil in which Duessa lives her everyday life appears to be more than that of other characters we've been introduced to; I think this has to do with the lengthened role of Duessa, where as other evil characters appear only for a short time in the text.  In every scene that Duessa is involved in the epic, she is doing something misleading, something that leads our protagonist closer and closer to danger.  It is because of this evidence of pure evil that I find it curious that when Duessa is captured by Arthur after defeating the giant, she is released with minimal harm and zero assurance that she will put an end to her evil ways.

In Stanza 49 Canto 8, the narrator tells the reader that "when they had the witch disrobed quight,/ And all her filthy feature open showne,/ They let her goe at will, and wander wayes unknowne" (7-9).  I don't understand why they would strip Duessa down to her bare nakedness and then allow her to escape.  I find the act of fully exposing her to be demeaning and revealing of her true character, but it is clear that Duessa is capable of recreating herself and committing all her crimes again to another unsuspecting individual; why would either of the knights give her another chance when they know just how evil she is?  In this bit of Canto 8, the evil is shamed but still released.  Why?

I've thought about this question and this particular scene for a while; many explanations have crossed my mind, but two stood out to me among the others.  The first is the idea that the good knights have forgiven Duessa for her sins, thus acting as a God-like figure (the biblical verse regarding the pure to cast the first stone comes to mind here), and the second possible explanation is that Duessa's release serves as a reminder to the reader that there will always be evil in the world, regardless of whether one evil individual is caught or not.  Both of these explanations require a biblical/religious reading of the text, but this is the most prominent reading for me; I find that both options illustrate a respective ideal that should be remembered by the reader.

The Anti-Christ in "The Jew of Malta"

We discussed in class the many ways in which Barabas serves as the anti-Christ in Christopher Marlowe's "The Jew of Malta", but what particularly stood out to me was the many ways Barabas is similar to Christ.  It seems to me that although Barabas outwardly opposes Christianity, he has more in common with Christ than he (or any Christian) would care to admit.  There are multiple instances of this Christ-like behavior throughout the play, but I find the most peculiar instance of it happens early in the play: Barabas is sacrificed by the Christians for the good of Malta.

The above instance occurs in the second scene of Act 1 and has a strong resemblance to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  The Christians are reminded of their "ten years' tribute" by Calymath and immediately decide to tax the Jews in order to accumulate the money they owe; Barabas refuses the tax and therefore is robbed of all his goods.  Ferneze states, "No, Jew, we take particularly thine/ To save the ruin of a multitude;/ And better one want for a common good/ Than many perish for a private man" (1.2.97-100).  Between the two options, Barabas is chosen to be sacrificed; likewise, Jesus was chosen over another option.  The Bible tells us that Jesus was meant to be sacrificed for everyone's sins, that His blood was spilled in order to cleanse the rest of us; Ferneze's statement mirrors that idea, claiming that taking Barabas's money and goods (his life) will release the rest of Malta from ruin.

It is curious to me that Marlowe would compare the Jew, Jesus Christ, to a Jew, Barabas, because one is thought to have saved mankind while the other is an evil figure, full of vengeance and hatred for Christianity.  If he made this comparison intentionally, then I must ask whether he did it to make the audience uncomfortable or if he did it to insinuate that not all Jews are evil figures, or if his point was to prove that there is a bit of evil in everything good?  So many questions are raised by Marlowe's depiction of Barabas as out Savior.  This relationship was curious to me and makes me reflect on other stereotypes surrounding me in today's society.  How many good things are linked with evil?  How many good people are stamped with an "evil" label?