Shakespeare emphasises the rift between Jews and Christians during the Elizabethan era to good dramatic effect through the relationship between “noble” Antonio and “misbeliever” Shylock. In a time when Christianity was seen as the ‘one religion’ and Jews were still loathed and blamed for the death of Christ, the audiences favour would have fallen with Antonio and his less than noble treatment of the Jew. The anti-Semitic audience would have laughed and applauded Shylock’s morose excuse of feeling “not well” as his usually austere language is saved for jubilant Antonio’s demand that he “presently become a Christian”. They would have supported Antonio’s stoical, yet hypocritical, nature as he never denies the accusations of “spitting on [Shylock’s] Jewish gabardine” and indeed promises that he is likely to “spit on thee again”. A modern audience is much more likely to respond disparately to this unthinkable discrimination as we can reason with Antonio’s dislike of usury and the ramifications this has for the Christian peoples of Venice, although we can also see the human in Shylock and sympathise with his desire for vengeance and justice against his Christian “intercessors”. The climax of this heady relationship in Act 4 leads us to question who the real villain is, or as Portia suggests; “which is the Merchant here and which the Jew?”
This contrast of these two characters is considered throughout the play as an extended metaphor. The ambiguity of which is the more likeable may even have reached a headstrong Elizabethan audience as Shylock’s characterisation changes so rapidly, perhaps as a result of his years of torment at the hands of “fawning publicans”. This description of Antonio, whilst maintaining his decent and virtuous image, provides deeper insight into his character and hints at his un-Christian behaviour at the trial scene when he receives no mercy in consequence of his “rendering none”. Shylock’s vicious and gleeful urges of Antonio to “look to his bond” as rumours about his ships reach Venice paint him as an equally foul character, willing to go to extreme lengths to keep his pride intact; he “will have the law”. His speeches rarely veer into poetic imagery as the Christian characters have a tendency to do; his sentences remain short and sharp, emphasising his physical and mental isolation from the other characters who “rate” him. At times he seems to spit out his words, especially insults of “cut-throat dog” and bitter and sardonic responses to his cruel down-sizing: “nay, take my life, pardon not that!” Again this bares a startling contrast to the mood of Antonio when he comes close to ruin; his resignation and self-pity reaches its pinnacle when he sends Bassanio a letter teeming with self-satisfaction and melodrama begging “[to] come/To see me pay my debt, and then I care not”. It is difficult not to see the emotional blackmail in this passage, supported by Salerio’s acknowledgment that Antonio “loves the world only for [Bassanio]”.
The relationship between Antonio and Bassanio almost mirrors that of Shylock and Jessica as he demands that she maintain his “sober house”; he sees her as a possession rather than another human being, and holds her loss in equal place to his money, showing that he perhaps has his priorities wrong, mirroring Antonio’s feeling towards his belongings and similar wishes to keep Bassanio under his control, making him feel beholden to him. Antonio’s modest pleasure in deciding Shylock’s fate can be read as fairly perverse; he can now “be content” in having power over another, as he has recognised his impotency with Bassanio. Similarly, his wish that “all [Shylock] dies possessed” of shall be given to Lorenzo and Jessica illustrates his desire to act as a father figure; he is clearly older than his companions as he is much more level-headed in business and seems to regret, now that his time grows short, that he has sacrificed love for business (hence his obtuse and hasty reaction to the suggestion that he may be in love: “Fie, fie!”). Now that his friends are entering into chapters of their lives which could potentially exclude him, he is willing to “seal to such a bond” to continue “[their] love” and commendation for him.
Antonio speaks in fluent, regular verse, mirroring his agreeable Christian nature and heightening the audiences suspicions that he will triumph over evil, whereas Shylock’s rhetoric paints him as the archetypal Jew, and as such the force of this evil: “…and for these courtesies/I’ll lend you thus much moneys?” Both men often infuse their speeches with negative imagery as they each have a burden on their shoulders; Antonio’s being the fate of his ships and his worry that the Jew “will have [his] bond”, whereas Shylock feels constant pressure from his peers who would be much happier if he wasn’t there: “He was wont to call me usurer”. This does not seem to bother him as he knows the anti-Semitic nature of the age and that his friends are then few, but he would like respect, just as Antonio would like Bassanio to be at the trial to “see [him] at [his] death” and recognise the sacrifice he has made for his dear friend. The homosexual subtext of this plot would have gone largely unnoticed in an Elizabethan audience as it was very much a taboo subject; the lower classes would have laughed at the comic interludes and the camaraderie as Antonio’s compatriots argue his case, and the more esteemed audience members would have admired the Christian propaganda. The main issue in modern society however, lies with the cruel and vicious subjugation of the Jew and his compatriots (even “gentle” Jessica finds it difficult interacting with the Christians even after her conversion) and Antonio’s reasons for this deep-seated hatred. Shakespeare is purposefully vague in his presentation of the argument as whilst the Christian success is a prerequisite to satisfy an Elizabethan audience, he emphasises the humanistic side of Shylock so that we do not view him as a one-dimensional gaudy villain, but a complete human being with “organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions” just like everyone else. Antonio provides the perfect foil to this debate and as such performs a crucial role in the play.
Whether viewed as a “moral and upright” Christian, or a hedonistic, lonely man “grow[ing] exceedingly strange”, Antonio is certainly an intriguing dramatic device used to explore the importance of friendship and mercy; he legitimises his place in Venice at the play’s conclusion and ensures that he will live a “content” life, but not without destroying Shylock’s happiness first. He maintains an eerie presence which resonates throughout the play, subtly influencing the actions of others; Shakespeare’s presentation of him is purposefully vague so that we make up our own minds about him.
