The extent to which Shakespeare allows the audience to feel sympathetic or hostile towards the character of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice.

of superiority. By Antonio lowering the rate of nuisance, Shylock feels threatened by the Christian, whose religion does not force him into the background of a moneylender. Antonio is therefore treated by Shylock with a sense of envy and Shylocks secret desire to have Antonio’s money and influence. These facts separate him from the Christian cast, throughout both the play and his life. This I believe is one of Antonio’s greatest punishments of Shylock, though rewarding him with thoughts of revenge, Antonio is sure of his boats safe return. This first scene involving both Shylock and Antonio, two completely different characters can be seen to set off their similar evolutions throughout the play, their only likeness being the situations in which they end the play, and how they could almost be seen as total opposites. This is shown not only through their hatred of each other, but also in the reflection of actions. You can almost see Shylock travelling a path that is the opposite of Antonio’s and how each of their stories directly affects the others. There is much notable wordplay between the two similar characters in their first scene together. Shylock talks of the hundreds of times that Antonio has shunned and looked down upon him, saying you called me a dog: and for these courtesies Ill lend you this much money Shylock is asking Antonio whether he should bow down and yield to one who hates him - does Antonio deserve forgiveness from Shylock? Can he justify his intolerance against Shylock? Obviously not. As Antonio interrupts Shylock’s unaccustomed stream of honest sarcasm with this more sensible statement: I am as like to call thee so again. From these writings, “I ascertain that Shylock is nothing but a persecuted Jew, trying to make a living that is acceptable to his people. But then, I have always rooted for the underdog and Shylock is nothing if not the underdog”. However, we cannot draw conclusions from this scene alone, but must draw evidence from a variety of scenes involving Shylock to ascertain a good, well-rounded evaluation of Shylock. For instance, to obtain a good evaluation of Shylock’s attitude towards other Jews we must observe his behaviour around his daughter, Jessica, but even this is tainted with family ties. Shylock’s absence of a wife does pose questions as to how close he and his daughter are, and if whatever treatment he gives her can be justified by his mourning. Shylock is not portrayed as the model father, but we will have to assume this from his one scene with his daughter, Jessica, and of course the later scene after she has stolen his money. Years of words falling upon Shylock’s unaware ears must have led up to Jessica’s parting words, I have a father, you a daughter lost I believe that this implies that Shylock believes he acts with his daughters good interest in mind, but will not listen to her. In the second scene there is much evidence for Shylock valuing money over his daughter, portrayed in the internal conflict with his crisis of, my daughter! My ducats this is good source material, even though it comes from a third party. The sheer inhumanity of valuing ducats over daughter, or even the contemplation of such a point, must leave the audience reeling, thus continuing the roller coaster of the audiences feeling towards Shylock: hating him one minute and pitying him the next. Toying with the audience’s emotions was always a pastime of Shakespeare. When Shylock does eventually emerge, he greets the sarcasm of Salarino and Solanio and the new dislike from the audience with this phrase: “I would rather my daughter dead at my feet and the jewels in her ear”, a very revealing phrase. Fortunately, he then is infinitely cheered at the news of Antonio’s boats, “let him look to his bond”, says Shylock, a gleeful omen of Antonio’s gruesome fate. Later in this scene, after ruthless verbal attack on the part of Salarino and Solanio, Shylock returns with a timeless speech, I am a Jew. This scene shows the impotent rage of Shylock at his daughter’s betrayal and his internal struggle of whom to blame, himself or his daughter? In the last two paragraphs, a very delicate balance is exposed. The audience’s sympathy for Shylock is teetering with every line; the audience is very indecisive and the slightest mistake on Shylock’s part could end with him tumbling into the void of audience hatred. The abuse of Shylock continues into the end of the play with the final courtroom scene where Shylock demands the payment of his bond. The court does examine the document and finds it legal, but worrying about this case becoming a precedent for others like it, they stall and offer more and more in the way of bribes. I think that the only reason that the sentence is not carried out immediately is because those involved are Antonio, pillar of the community, and Shylock, hated moneylender. Of course Shylock is outdone, and by a woman at that. Portia continues arguing with Shylock until she has found a loophole in the document, “take your pound of flesh, but let not a drop of blood be spilt” At this point, Shylock visibly sinks. Seeing that he is beaten, he tries to regain his losses asking again for the money. The court, Antonio and Portia now begin to remove the guts from Shylock, deconstructing his very will to live, a vile revenge for such a small offence. All your money shall be left to your daughter. Maybe this play has nothing to say about race, anti-Semitism or Jewish law. In my view the entire plays proceedings are due to one of two things: either love of money, or in the case of the few, simply love. But even this can boil down to money. Shylock talks constantly of money, occasionally valuing it over his own flesh and blood, i.e. his beloved daughter. Antonio had a different love of money; he enjoyed seeing himself as the provider and feeling more important for it. Was this proof to his shallow character? Did he believe that he could make no difference to the world without giving handouts? Proof of this comes at the end of the play, when he finishes alone as Shylock. As poetry goes, it is rather sarcastic. As for Bassanio, why did he ever want to marry Portia? By the end of the play, I had almost forgotten that the only reason was because he wanted a steady source of income without the hassle of working. I think that Bassanio may have been just as tricky as Shylock. He worked out that by showing his greed to Portia during the test, would spell the end of the relationship. Portia could even have been in it for greed. If not for money, then maybe different guarantee, lust for Bassanio could be interpreted as greed, could it not? If you think about it, all the characters are driven by greed when you get down to it. As I stated earlier, Shylock’s race had little or nothing to do with the outcome of the play. If he had been a Christian moneylender, the same would have happened. In the end, the saying is true: money is the root of all evil.