So it is obvious, that, to Shylock, this is not a normal transaction, and the bond is not one he would normally make, so we can assume that, to Shylock, this is not a matter of business, it is personal. And should there be a reasonable explanation as to why this affects him so much, it would be fair to assume that this sort of violence is not characteristic of Shylock, and that there must have been some form of provocation. This would lead us to believe that Shylock is more a victim than a villain- he is merely exasperated at the years of abuse he has received. And there is much evidence of this, both from how Antonio addressed Shylock and from what Shylock says about how he has been treated. In Act 1 scene 3, we hear from Shylock how
‘…many a time and oft
In the Rialto you [Antonio] have rated me
About my moneys and my usances.
Still I have borne it with a patient shrug
For sufferance is the badge of all our tribe.’
There are various points in what he says that prove he has been maltreated by Antonio, and also that his charging interest on his loans (his usances) is another point for Antonio to criticise, proving that Christians at the time would have despised him for this.
We also hear how Shylock has not retaliated as of yet, for he is used to the fact that Jews at the time were ill-treated, to the point where they were in exile from 1290 to 1655. This means that most of Shakespeare’s contemporaries would have never met a Jew and therefore would be likely to believe all the negative things that were said about them in blind ignorance, including the belief that they carried out regular ritual murders.
Shakespeare shows unusual insight for his time in not directly demonising Shylock, but instead having him be accused by various people. He also shows how Shylock has been dehumanised, and even gives him a chance to prove his humanity whilst still placing him in a weaker position, making the play as relevant now in today’s context as it was in Elizabethan times, merely relevant in a different way. Whereas to an Elizabethan audience Shylock’s speech in Act 1 scene 3 (‘Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?...’) might have been considered comical, or, at least, a triumph for Christianity (as the Jew is obviously defeated enough to loosen his grasp on the dignity he has tried so hard to uphold) it can be taken today as Shylock’s most moving speech, claiming equality with Christians for Jews.
Of course, it can be argued that Shakespeare intended either way, but the fact that it was written in prose is significant because it makes the speech sound more spontaneous and less artificial, making it seem more moving and less like it would have sounded should it have been inserted purely to ridicule Shylock’s character further. However, I do not believe that Shakespeare’s reason for this was necessarily due to Shakespeare’s lack of anti-semitic feelings, as it is perfectly possible that the sole reason for this was to make the play more dramatic. In any case, it is a stark comparison to Barrabas, Christopher Marlowe’s Jewish character in ‘The Jew of Malta’, who is attributed insatiable greed and a very violent nature- more fitting of people’s attitudes to Jews in Elizabethan England. These more humane depictions of Shylock in the play also lead us to believe that Shakespeare did not intend Shylock to be regarded as the villain in the play.
However, there remain various actions that Shylock carries out that still would make him seem a villain, and also Antonio’s likening him to ‘the devil’, which cannot be ignored. The implications of Antonio’s comment are important, for there are four ways in which the essay question can be answered- whether I consider him to be the villain, whether society today would judge him to be the villain, whether Shakespeare’s contemporaries would have considered him to be the villain and whether Shakespeare himself intended to. The connotations attached to the devil (and therefore those attributed to Shylock by Antonio’s insult) are important in showing whether Shakespeare intended Shylock to be a villain or not.
There are no reasons to suggest, both from this play, any other of Shakespeare’s plays or historical evidence that Shakespeare was not a man oh his time, and therefore a strict Christian. In fact, it is clear from some of his other plays that Christianity and a natural order of things was considered by him essential for a person to lead a stable, good life (such as in Macbeth) and therefore, calling Shylock ‘the devil’ would suggest that Shakespeare was not altogether sympathetic towards Shylock’s character. It is also possible, however, to debate that this was done to make the play more appealing to his audience, for, after all, he relied on the income they produced.
But it is clear that this is not merely a passing comment- for in Act 2 scene 2, Launcelot repeatedly, in his soliloquy, calls him the devil-
‘I should stay with the Jew my master, who- God bless the mark- is a kind of devil; and to run away from the Jew I should be ruled by the fiend, who- saving you reverence- is the devil himself. Certainly the Jew is the devil incarnation…’
The implications of calling Shylock the devil are severe- it implies that Shylock is the anti-Christ, a heathen, and therefore goes against all of Christianity, until he becomes a representation of ‘evil’. It also implies that Shylock, as that devil, is there to lead the Christian characters in the play astray, and it is interesting to note that the first time that Shylock is described as being ‘the devil’ by Antonio is whilst they are discussing the issues surrounding the bond. Therefore the debate as to whether Shylock, as the devil, is leading Antonio (the exemplary Christian) astray arises.
However, there is another occasion where the term ‘devil’ is applied to another character in the play, but under altogether different circumstances. In Act 2 scene 3, Jessica describes Launcelot as ‘a merry devil’. This appears to be more a term of endearment than an insult, suggesting that Launcelot, although mischievous, is a Puck-like character who means no wrong. But she also, in the same sentence, describes her home as ‘hell’ now that Launcelot has left; which, when you take into account the number of references to Shylock equated to the devil, has altogether more sinister connotations. And indeed, we find in that scene more evidence that could be indicative of Shylock being the villain in the play.
The reason behind Jessica’s remark (‘I am sorry thou wilt leave my father so:/Our house is hell, and thou, a merry devil,/didst rob it of some taste of tediousness’) is the severity of Shylock’s character which when applied to his daughter becomes a strictness taken to absurd extremes. He means only to protect her, but this ultimately serves solely to drive her away from him, and she elopes with Lorenzo, a Christian (which fuels his religious hatred) taking with her the fortune her miserly father has been amassing throughout his life. The night she elopes, Shylock, before leaving to attend a dinner banquet thrown by Bassanio (for the sole reason of eating that which Bassanio has had to pay for- ‘But yet I’ll go in hate to feed upon/The prodigal Christian’) he has instructed Jessica to:
‘Lock up my doors, and when you hear the drum
And the vile squeaking of the wry-necked fife,
…Nor thrust your head into the public street
To gaze upon Christian fools with varnished faces.
…Let not the sound of shallow foppery enter
My sober house.’
Here we see evidence of both his embittered, sullen character and his intense desire to shield his daughter from the Christians and their ‘shallow foppery’.
His reaction to his daughter eloping seems to show evidence both of his being a victim and a villain. His initial reaction is one of intense distress, but we again see evidence of his miserly character. We hear of Solanio how
‘… the dog Jew did utter in the streets:
My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter!
Fled with a Christian! O my Christian ducats!’’
This anguished repetition employed by Shylock reveals to us the extent of his distress, whilst his confusion between his daughter and his money shows us the extent of his preoccupation with it. His bewildered utterances would doubtlessly be a source of great comicality to an Elizabethan audience, as raw emotions were usually disguised under several layers of pretence by all the most important characters in the play, including Antonio’s unwillingness to demonstrate his fear when he appears to be a victim of Shylock’s blood lust:
‘I do oppose my patience to his fury, and am armed
To suffer with a quietness of spirit,
The very tyranny and rage of his.’
The last scene that features Shylock has evidence that both seems to confirm his position as the villain in the play and that of him as a victim. It also seems to represent the values present in the morality plays of the late 15th century that Shakespeare was heavily influenced by. This scene, the trail scene (Act 4 scene 1), sees Shylock being turned from the prosecutor to the prosecuted. He is offered the chance at first to show mercy on Antonio and receive instead a sum much greater than the original amount, but steadfastly refuses. His intense hatred towards Antonio, based on religious grounds as well as how Antonio has treated him throughout the play makes him pursue the penalty of the bond.
He is, of course, outsmarted by Portia who finds a loophole in the contract, and the fact that he is shown mercy in that he is not put to death seems again to be a ploy used by Shakespeare to show the difference in his character compared to that of the important Christian characters; and his inability to show mercy compared to Antonio’s seemingly forgiving, magnanimous character. This immediately places him in a much weaker position- he has gone from having power over Antonio to being at somebody else’s mercy. This is furthered when he is offered some of is possessions back by Antonio – it is as if a point is being made about his greed, and this is confirmed by the fact that he is made to renounce his religion – that which he has been abused for all his life, and is made to leave his money to his daughter and the Christian she eloped with. Shylock, villainous at the start of the scene, is now powerless and a victim seemingly of his own actions.
It seems impossible to us now to judge Shylock as harshly as Shakespeare’s contemporaries would have done. To them doubtlessly Shylock would have appeared as the villain, from his miserly ‘usances’ and heathen religion to his blood lust, hunger for revenge and lack of mercy. But, with such irrefutable evidence of sustained religious persecution (unacceptable by today’s standards) and moments when we are given access to Shylock’s most raw emotions, those he normally manages to mask by his hostile, embittered exterior and judge them not as signs of Shylock’s weakness or as emotions to be ridiculed but to provide us with a more rounded view of Shylock’s character, our judgement of Shylock is likely to be much softer. It is this humanity that Shylock has been robbed of- he is referred to by name only four times throughout the play, addressed mostly as ‘the Jew’, and equated with the devil-and it is those that rob him of his humanity that accuse and judge him. I think it is this dehumanisation, brought about by seemingly the most morally upright characters, which leads to the actions that could influence us reduce him to such a two-dimensional role- that of the villain.
This could be the influence of the morality plays transpiring into Shakespeare’s work- the villain, Vice (for, after all, Shylock is equated with the devil and therefore as being guilty of attempting to lead ordinary, everyman to sin and vice), ultimately is a victim of his own lack of mercy and is defeated by Virtue- present in the form of the heroes’ magnanimity and forgiveness towards him.
However, we cannot ignore the powerfully emotive speech which Shylock is allowed by Shakespeare in Act 3 scene 1. If Shylock was only intended to be a simple villain, it would seem pointless to plead his humanity, to try to show the similarities between Jews and Christians- their underlying humanity. It would have seemed more appropriate to make Shylock more like Christopher Marlowe’s Jewish character Barrabas- violent, cunning, cruel and, ultimately, two-dimensional. Instead we are presented with a ‘villain’ who has been persecuted his entire life by those who are given authority to judge him, who seems resigned-
‘Still I have borne it with a patient shrug
For sufferance is the badge of all our tribe’
(Act 1 scene 3)
-and who has been provoked throughout. His one act of violence, of blood lust, arises from the fact that, for the first time, he holds power over those who torment him, his hatred is fuelled by a lifetime of humiliation, and his lack of mercy not only by this but by the events that occurred between the agreement of the bond and the trial.
We can only assume that Shakespeare intended to make the play appealing to his first audiences, those he would have received money from, and therefore I am perhaps not judging Shylock as Shakespeare intended his audiences to, and that I am ‘prejudiced’ by my modern perspective which has not made me anti-semitic. However, as the essay question asks for my interpretation of Shylock as a character as opposed to an Elizabethan audience’s, it is my conclusion that we cannot blame Shylock entirely for his actions without blaming his persecutors for their part in provoking Shylock to act as he did, and the evidence showing that Shylock has not only a villainous side but a more human one; capable of expressing complex humane emotions, leads me to believe that we cannot reduce Shylock’s character to that of ‘villain’, although of the characters in the play his is certainly the most negatively portrayed.