Perhaps no other character in Shakespeare’s plays has received as much debate over the centuries than has Shylock, the Jewish money-lender in “The Merchant of Venice.” Shakespeare himself has often been accused of being anti-Semitic because of Shylock’s portrayal as someone demanding that “pound of flesh.” The fact of the matter is, however, that if one accurately depicts the period in which this play was set, Jews had little opportunity for professions in that tightly Catholic controlled area of the world other than to become money lenders and bankers. In other words, those who justify Shylock’s portrayal claim that he was performing one of the few “professions” permitted to the Jews of that era.
One cannot escape the fact that, even as a minor character in terms of the continuity of the plot, it is Shylock, rather than Antonio or even Portia that most critics and historians pounce on when trying to explain both Shakespeare’s mind set and the actual social exclusion of Jews in the period in which the play takes place. At this point it may be interesting to note that, through the years, much more has been made about anti-Semitism in both the writing and portrayal of Shylock than about the interracial marriage in “Othello.”
“It is often argued that the famous “hath not a Jew eyes… If you prick us do we not bleed” speech of (III, i, 59-70) stresses the common core of humanity that lurks beneath the exterior of Shylock’s public character” (Stirling 6). This critic also believes that the fact that Shakespeare’s play affords a glimpse of the Shylock’s human core supposedly mitigates the accusations of anti-Semitism. This speech, the argument maintains, reveals kind of humanist good-will of Shakespeare who allows his audience to see into the plight of Shylock, the persecuted and bitter man.
Stirling, in his examination of both the anti-Semitism fostered by the play and its refutation that Shylock was merely a proper character of the times and only minimally involved in the plot’s resolution, makes his point of argument clear: “There are at least two positions that are commonly adopted in response to the question of the possible relationship between anti-Semitism and The Merchant of Venice….The first argues that The Merchant of Venice endorses anti-Semitism and, by extension, that Shakespeare is an anti-Semite because his work reflects the anti-Semitism that was part of Elizabethan culture…The second argues that The Merchant of Venice subverts anti-Semitism and, by extension, that Shakespeare is a great humanist because his work resists or transcends the anti-Semitism that was part of Elizabethan culture” (Stirling 1).
There are some historians who claim that the character of Shylock was “suggested” to Shakespeare because of “Queen Elizabeth’s Jewish physician, Rodrigo Lopez, (who) was executed on the charge of having received a bribe to poison the Queen….the London populace took his guilt for granted, and anti-Semitism ran hot in the pubs. Possibly Shakespeare was moved or commissioned to tap this mood by writing The Merchant of Venice” (Durant 91).
It has become clear that, despite being what most theatre historians would consider to be clearly a minor role in the play, Shylock has become the focal point in any discussion of “The Merchant of Venice.” One must ask whether there could have been a character other than Shylock. One answer seems to prove that Shylock was somehow “valuable” in getting audiences involved in the plot: “William Shakespeare, being a man of the theatre, would have been heavily influenced not only by history, but also by the theatre that had preceded him. He was also an exceptionally good businessman with a keen sense of what his audience wanted. Portrayals of Jews in drama were a long-standing tradition by the time Shakespeare wrote The Merchant of Venice. The Jew seems to have been the guy audiences loved to hate in medieval and Renaissance drama — the equivalent to Americans’ glee at watching the television exploits of the fictional J.R. Ewing two decades ago” (Rogers 3).
In researching the topic of Shylock’s role in the total play, it becomes ever clearer that it is his symbolic role in the society of the time- as well as ours when the Holocaust is the symbol of anti-Semitism- which creates the most discussion. “James Shapiro, the most respected Shakespeare revisionist (and the author of Shakespeare and the Jews), has argued that in Elizabethan times, Shylock was the embodiment of the alien other in the British mind. He writes, ‘Much of the play’s vitality can be attributed to the ways in which it scrapes against a bedrock of beliefs about the racial, national, sexual, and religious difference of others. I can think of no other literary work that does so as unrelentingly and as honestly'” (Stone 4).
One can carp about the “honesty” of Shylock’s portrayal, especially since this somewhat marginal character in the overall plot has gained far more attention over the years than even Portia (often acclaimed as the first “female professional”). We need to examine John Picker’s defense of Shylock to gain a better perspective not only about the character but about the times in which he was portrayed.
“Jewish stereotypes continued to flourish in England …Elizabethans encountered few Jews….yet Church sermons nevertheless proclaimed Jews to be ‘hard-hearted blasphemers who were also vain, ostentatious, and deceitful'” (Picker 2). Irish and English audiences of the time saw the play- especially the Shylock character as a farce as well as an anti-Semitic “morality play.” “Their Shylock had a huge nose, red wig, and beard that immediately identified him as Judas Iscariot, spawn of the devil. He had stepped out of the medieval morality play, and when Antonio, The Merchant of Venice, borrows the 3,000 ducats and signs the bond, Man has made a pact with the Devil” (Stone 5).
The fact remains that, outside this particular play, the idea of “usury” was common in medieval and Renaissance times, even state and city-state sanctioned. “While Christians considered usury sacrilegious, they did not hesitate to request extensive loans from Jews…(and) many Italian city governments depended upon Jewish usurers to support the poor by opening ‘loan banks’. Jewish money thus represented a powerful force governing the sustenance, expansion, and protection of Christian societies” (Picker 3). In other words, Shylock, though a relatively minor character in this particular play, represents a major force in the society of the time in which the play takes place.
Again, it must be stated that no one is quite certain where and how Shakespeare developed the idea of the role of Jews in Venetian society and their importance as money lenders. Surely, Shylock was not meant originally to be the object of farce, demonizing or pity as one might suspect that the later Shakespearean character, Falstaff, became. He was, therefore, not a true villain like Iago or the object of laughter like a Bottom. Still, as Picker points out, Shylock’s character was introduced “through a series of abrupt, grating conversations which feature his refusal to be manipulated and ostracized” (Picker 4).
Of course he is ostracized because, if nothing else, due to his “race” and his money lender profession. Again, Picker explains: “Antonio marginalizes Shylock by speaking about him in the third person, despite his presence on stage” (Picker 5).
However, Shylock IS present and Antonio, regardless of his personal feelings (or that of his Christian “class”), needs those three thousand ducats. The invocation of the Jewish patriarchs has little effect, it seems, because for Christians history may have begun with the formation of the world in six days and yet its “patriarch” was Jesus. As the “son of God” Jesus surely surpassed any definition of the Jewish patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Joseph who were mere mortals and thus subservient to God.
Even if one goes line by line to examine both Shylock as a character within the play and Shakespeare’s motivation for the character, one can not find critics and historians with a single concept. Perhaps more concerns about Shylock and the play itself are reserved for those epic lines “hath not a Jew eyes…If you prick us do we not bleed?” “These lines come from a speech that supposedly demonstrates (according to the revisionists) that Shakespeare’s universal humanism rises above anti-Semitic stereotypes. But in the first line of his speech, Shylock intransigently declares that he will use Antonio’s pound of flesh ‘to bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge.’ The speech proclaims that Jew and Christian are alike in their carnal human nature, not their spirituality” (Stone 7). Shakespeare makes this point even stronger: “And near the end of the speech, Shylock protests that he has learned the villainy of revenge from Christian example. Audiences who had been taught that Christ’s central teaching was forgiveness might hear in the final lines of that speech-“If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in [revenge]”-another demonstration of the intransigent, truth-twisting Jew” (Stone 7).
Why was the character given this speech at that particular point in the play? Picker wonders, as well: “Ironically, Shylock chooses an unpredictable moment- when he is in the company of two of the play’s least significant characters- to deliver one of the play’s most extraordinary pieces of rhetoric” (Picker 10).
At this point one needs to ask whether the real sub-theme of “The Merchant of Venice” is really how best to define usury. Picker says that “Shylock argues that interest, like sexual reproduction, is a creative, productive catalyst; he suggests that interest is necessary to create new wealth just as sex is necessary to create new people” (Picker 7). How Shakespeare equates the two- sex and usury- in a single speech is something that is difficult to explain. Again, the ugly head of anti-Semitism comes to the fore here. In fact, the climax of the trial is seen as clear proof by some that Shakespeare, given the times in which he himself lived, was an anti-Semite:
“Shakespeare’s anti-Semitism is revealed not just in the character of Shylock, but in the entire crowd-pleasing comic structure of The Merchant of Venice. The stiff-necked, usurious, vengeful Jew gets his comeuppance from Portia, a woman dressed as a man: that is funny. He is forced to accept as Christian charity from Antonio the return of half of his own hard-earned ducats: that is funnier. But his forced conversion, Antonio’s final turn of the screw, makes a hilarious ending, Shylock’s soul is saved” (Stone 8).
However, for those who see this play as more comic than tragic or historical, how do we explain Shylock’s daughter, Jessica? She converts to Christianity and elopes with a Christian, Lorenzo. Does this imply that Jews can become decent members of society by renouncing their faith and accepting Christ?
Picker picks up on the attitudes of the Christians when hearing of Jessica’s elopement. “As the dog Jew did utter in the streets. ‘My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter fled with a Christian! O my Christian ducats” (Picker 8). This is clearly parody and sarcasm. But, is it fair to any of the characters within the play? The lines lampoon Shylock and the Jews and, in a sense, tell the audience of those days (and perhaps even in the present), all you have to do to be a decent honorable human being is to become a Christian.
There is another side to this action: “If Shakespeare meant there to be a human side to Shylock, it is in his response to the news that his eloped daughter has exchanged a ring she stole from him for a monkey. Shylock confides to his friend, ‘Thou torturest me, Tubal: it was my turquoise; I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor: I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys.’ ‘Wilderness of monkeys’ is an unforgettable phrase and is not, I think, about greed” (Stone 10). Is the play about greed, then, except in these final moments? If there is one difficulty for the casual reader of “The Merchant of Venice” it is that one has difficulty summarizing the plot and meaning of the play in a single sentence. It is about Venice, about Venetian society, about usury, about the attitude toward and by Jews. But, that does not do justice to the characters and the deeper meaning of the play. What one has to deal with in this examination of Shylock within “The Merchant of Venice” is whether the audiences through the years see him as a cardboard villain, made up to even look “strange”, or whether we tend to read far too much into this one character who is not even the major protagonist in the entire play.
One can also find comments that lead to a gradual and sometimes subtle change in the portrayal of Shylock by actors (much as has happened in the characterization of Dickens;’ Fagin). “Over the (last) 300 years Shylock’s character underwent a gradual sea change. Notably, during the 19th century, the demonized usurer acquired a human, if not always humane, face. In 1880, a celebrated London performance by Sir Henry Irving decisively transformed Shylock from an unquestionable villain into a more sympathetic character. Although still obsessed with vengeance, Irving’s Shylock emerged as an iconic reviled and feared Outsider/Other, as sinned against as sinning” (Greenberg 61).
Many critics of the play feel that there is no real closure: The play just sort of “ends.” Picket states his conclusions this way: “By allowing Shylock and Jessica to undermine closure, Shakespeare unites the historical and literary concerns (I have) outlined above. He seems to recognize the inherent similarity between Renaissance Venice’s need for the Jew in order to define itself economically, and the need of his play’s Venetians to ostracize Shylock in order to define themselves as a community” (Picker 21). In fact, there is little or no resolution in terms of dramatic structure, but somehow we tend to understand the relationships among the characters- major as well as minor more clearly. “The Merchant of Venice” is not a play about a Jewish moneylender. It is about Venetian society- the good and the bad, the admirable and the ill-conceived. At its end, the play is about love and loyalty and the future of three married couples. Shylock is long forgotten. He does not even appear in the final act.
So, in the end, where does Shylock fit? He is not, as was mentioned earlier, a villain. He is a character to entertain and amuse the audience of its day- the Jew as moneylender, as an object of ridicule, yet a man needed by the protagonists in the play. He is a heartbroken father as well as the object of derision that makes other Venetians confirm their standing in the community. Without the Shylock character, however, “The Merchant of Venice” might be considered a minor Shakespeare play. No other character (excluding, perhaps, Hamlet) in any of Shakespeare’s plays has received as much dispute and commentary about his “meaning” and interpretation than Shylock. And yet, Modern Man has used Shylock for nefarious purposes: “The Merchant of Venice was so admired and so often performed in German theaters in the 1920s and during the Third Reich that some Jews still living in the shadow of the Holocaust draw a line from Shylock to Auschwitz” (Stone 1).
REFERENCES:
Durant, Will, and Durant, Ariel: The Age of Reason Begins New York: Simon & Schuster (1961)
Greenberg, Harvey Roy: “The Thing Itself. (history of Shylock portrayals in theatre and film)” Psychiatric Times. July 1, 2005
Picker, John: “Shylock and the Struggle for Closure” Judaism, Spring 1994
Rogers, Jami: “Shylock and History” Masterpiece Theatre Interviews www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/merchant/ei_shylock.html
Stirling, Grant. “Shakespeare and Anti-Semitism: The Question of Shylock.” February 1997. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7221
Stone, Alan A. “Redeeming Shylock” Boston Review, April/May 2005 bostonreview.net/BR30.2/stone.html
