Merchant of Venice

Clearly there is textual evidence of anti-Semitism in the Merchant of Venice; Shylock is a “cut-throat dog” (1.3.108) and ruthless moneylender who seems more concerned about his wealth than his only daughter. The character of Shylock is interesting constructed by Shakespeare and the audience continual fluctuates between casting him as villain or victim. Although Shylock is within his legal rights to pursue his contract in demanding a 'pound of flesh' from Antonio, it is morally outrageous and only seeks to reaffirm the stereotypical views of Jews. However, as the play progresses there is a distinct blurring of the initial religious dichotomy and the “disconcerting racist tinge” of the Christians is difficult to accept leaving the audience feeling morally and ethically challenged.

In fact, Shylock's cynicism of Antonio is well qualified, given the previous treatment he has received: “Fair Sir, you spat upon me Wednesday last/ You spurned me such a day; another time / You called me dog; and for these courtesies/ I'll lend you thus much money?” (1.3.121-124). The audience is led to feel pity for Shylock who endures harsh religious persecution. Outlining the ridicule Shylock has experienced Shakespeare demands self-reflection from his audience, as Shylock calls for common humanitarian values to override any religious or racial differences, as is the case with economic transactions: “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions: fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same winter and summer as a Christian is?” (3.1.49-54). When Shylock seeks his revenge, feeling himself to be a victim of society, and calls for legal justice he is cruelly tricked and humiliated by his Christian enemies. Shylock displays a shift in character, and the audience feels pity for his situation – the lose of his only daughter to a Christian husband, the abandon of his slave and most of all the court ruling that he must give up his fortune and convert to Christianity.

 

There is “a profound unease experienced through the behaviour of the Christians” particularly in the result of the court scene and Shylock's humiliation and suffering. The framework of religious juxtaposition established from the beginning of the play illustrates the inequality in the treatment of Shylock and enables the audience to recognise the hypocrisy of the Christians who are carrying out this persecution. Furthermore, Antonio's lack of justification for why he so despises Shylock, serves as an example of the hollowness on which prejudice is formed without reason. “Neither Jew nor Christian in this play lives up to his formal or assumed profession of faith, but neither profession is thereby in itself invalidated”. The audience is faced with a “bitter confrontation of two essential noble minds, Antonio and Shylock, both flawed and overthrown by their deep-seated racial and personal antipathies”. The failure of both the Christian and the Jew in the play to live out their assumed faith means the audience is continually struggling with changing moral judgements.

Yet, there is more complexity to the play than simple religious disputes between the Christian and the Jew; Shakespeare also uses the topical issue of anti-Semitism to expose the injustice and social discrimination between 'us' and 'other'. Portia's casket dilemma raises questions of racial discrimination, when she rejects both the Spanish and Moroccan suitors, purely on racial grounds. Despite professing her best wishes to the Prince of Morocco, she celebrates at the failure of the 'the Moor': “All of his complexion' fail as he has done” (2.7.79). What the caskets also reveal is the contrast between outward appearances and inner reality. Shakespeare's prevailing idea seems to be that true reality requires looking beyond the surface, “All that glisters in not gold” (2.7.65), which is also true of anti-Semitism, that external appearances or labelling of Jews can be equally misleading. Furthermore, Portia's lesson that “that same prayer doth teach us all to render / The deeds of mercy” (4.1.200) uniting both Christians and Jews under the same law of justice and mercy is “perhaps the strongest argument for the play's not being anti-Semitic”.

There play also presents an interesting contrast between wealth and poverty, as Bassanio feels unable to approach Portia without an elaborate entourage and appearance of opulent wealth, in fear of being seen as unsuitable. These juxtapositions throughout the play highlight the inequality between characters and their unfounded discrimination against one another. The moral and ethical decisions of all the characters raise questions about their integrity, which conflict with existing stereotypes, and require the audience to reassess their own prejudices. While there are anti-Semitic elements to the play, the implied inequality of the Christians relationships brings their faith into equal consideration of its merits, perhaps even more so than the Jewish faith.

By using the well established discourse of anti-Semitism which his audience would have been familiar with, the Merchant of Venice in fact conceals a rather challenging anti-Christian text in the disguise of an anti-Semitic play. Were Shakespeare intending to write a solely anti-Semitic play, it makes no sense that he would create Christian heroes who poses such dislikeable characteristics and a Jew who demands the audiences' sympathy because of the injustices he has suffered. In fact, Shakespeare was an exceedingly unusual writer for his time to provide Shylock with some form of motive, seeming to rise above the anti-Semitism of his time. Critics have long debated why he offers Shylock a rational motive for his actions given that “certainly, his audience did not expect it”. This suggests Shakespeare's intention was not to promote anti-Semitism, but rather to highlight the issue of religious discrimination and its questionable rationale.

The Merchant of Venice can, on first reading, appear to be a strongly anti-Semitic play. However, through the prism of anti-Semitic attitudes Shakespeare exposes the reality of racial and religious bigotry and prejudice, highlighting its illogicality and posing a direct challenge to his audience. The strong moral complexities of the plays themes are far greater than simple anti-Semitic sentiments allow for. While there is always opportunity for different readings of Shakespeare's texts, The Merchant of Venice is not primarily intended to been read as an anti-Semitic play.

Bibliography

Crawford, John W. “Portia: Re-evaluated portrait” in The Learning, Wit, and Wisdom of Shakespeare's Renaissance Women, Edwin Mellen Press (1997)

Golden, Harry. Only in America, Greenwood Press, (1973)

Hirsch, Brett D. “A gentle and no Jew” in The difference marriage makes in The Merchant of Venice”, Parergon: 23:1 (2006)

Keefe, Maryelle “Isolation to Communion” in The Merchant of Venice: new critical essays, ed Macleod Mahon, Ellen. Routledge, (2002)

Eisaman Maus, Katherine, Introduction to The Merchant of Venice, The Norton Shakespeare 2ed, W.W.Norton & Company (2008)

Merchant, W. Moelwyn. Introduction to The Merchant of Venice, Penguin (1967)

Milton, Joyce. “Introduction” in The Merchant of Venice, Barron's Educational Series (1985)

Morris, Jonathan and Robert Smith, eds, “Ideas and Activities”, appendix to The Merchant of Venice, Cambridge University Press, (1987)

Orgel, Stephen. “Imagining Shylock” in Imagining Shakespeare, Palgrave McMillan (2003)

Seach, Gregory and Jones, Peter. Let him look to his bond: a workshop approach to Shakespeare, St Clair Press, (1991)

Word Count

Net essay: 1320

Quotes: 202

Total: 1522

---