Shylock: Villain or Victim in the Merchant of Venice

University Degree Linguistics, Classics and related subjects

Jeremy Rodriguez

English 152

“Merchant of Venice”

3-6-00

SHYLOCK: VILLAIN OR VICTIM

In the “The Merchant of Venice,” all of the characters can be viewed from a variety of perspectives. The perspective that one takes therefore directly influences one’s point of view on that character. No character fits this theory more than Shylock. Shylock, and his role as a Jewish moneylender, has been analyzed from many different perspectives. He is viewed as a villain by some, a victim by others, but a man to be pitied by both. On the surface Shylock appears to be cruel and unforgiving. However once one begins to analyze the play he begins to find out the “whys.” To figure out these “whys” one must thoroughly research both sides of the argument as to whether or not he was a victim or villain. Once one does this they are able to come up with their own educated and valid opinion about this complex character.

When one first gets done reading “The Merchant of Venice” a feeling of dislike for Shylock emerges on the reader. He appears to be the major antagonist of the play. He is cunning, unmerciful, and greedy. His cunning capabilities are first seen when he makes the deal with Antonio. He says, “Let the forfeit be nominated for an equal pound of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken in what part of your body pleaseth me” (Act I, Scene 3). Antonio, thinking that Shylock is either joking or lost his mind readily accepts. He figures that with no interest he loses no extra money. To someone reading the play the taking of another man’s flesh seems monstrous. I mean, why would someone demand this? However Shylock was not joking and Antonio finds this out by the end of the play. Shylock is also viewed as a villain because of his unmerciful ness towards Antonio near the end of the play. Shylock is first offered the amount of money Antonio owes to him, by Bassanio. Shylock refuses and Bassanio then ups the offer to twice of what Shylock is owed. Again Shylock turns it down saying, “I would not draw then; I would have my bond” (Act IV, Scene 1). It is obvious that money is not the issue here, rather revenge is. Shylock will not accept any amount of money in place of Antonio’s flesh. Most people cannot understand this at all. Especially since Shylock is rather greedy throughout the entire play. Ramona Ramirez says that when Shylock accepts Antonio’s bond saying, “Antonio is a good man” (Act I Scene 3), he means it in a financial way (“Shylock”). Another spot in the play where his greed is perfectly displayed is after his daughter Jessica leaves him and elopes with Lorenzo, a Christian. On her way out she steals a good amount of her father’s money. Shylock arrives home to find that his daughter and his ducats (their form of currency) are gone. He immediately exclaims, “My daughter! O, my ducats! O, my daughter! Fled with a Christian! O, my Christian ducats! Justice! The law! My ducats and my daughter! A sealed bag, two sealed bags of ducats” (Act II, Scene 8)! By shouting this down the streets of Venice, Shylock displays his greed by worrying about his ducats instead of his daughter. He even calls for justice saying that his daughter stole the ducats and that someone should find her. We would think that most parents would think nothing of their money and rather focus on retrieving their daughter. However Shylock does exactly the opposite. He even emphasizes that she married a Christian, which also makes him appear a little bit racist. Adding to that speculation Shylock says of Antonio, “I hate him for his is Christian” (Act I, Scene 3). With these different types of characteristics it’s no wonder that many people classify Shylock as a villain. These people believe that Shylock got what he deserved at the end of the play. I mean all the qualities I mentioned are personality vices rather than personality virtues. So, in that aspect, how can one argue that he is not a villain?

This is a preview of the whole essay

However, as I mentioned earlier, there are two sides to this story. While many people are disgusted with Shylock’s actions, others can totally sympathize with them. They see him as a victim of society and circumstances. By the end of the play this confident man lost his daughter, half his fortune, his religion, and ultimately his dignity. Being a Jew, Shylock was subject to constant injustice. The Jews during that time were looked down upon by the other religions and were often discriminated against. Shylock, although not fond of Antonio, attempts to be pleasant towards him when Antonio remarks, “As to they friends; for when did friendship take a breed for barren metal of his friend? But lend it rather to thine enemy, who, if he break, thou mayst with better face exact the penalty” (Act I, Scene 3). How then, can Antonio declaring they are enemies, expect mercy at the end of the play? Would you be merciful to someone who not only says they are our enemy, but spits on you, calls you a dog, and then says they would gladly do it again? For most people forgiveness and mercy would be next to impossible, and Shylock is no exception. To make matters worse Antonio, Bassanio, Salerio, Salanio, Salarino, Gratsiano, and Lancelot (all Christians) are either involved or aware of Lorenzo’s plan to steal Jessica behind Shylock’s back and elope with her. In Susan Fischer’s point of view this is where Shylock began acting in villainous ways. She says that, “ Only after suffering the loss of Jessica and violent abuses to his person does Shylock come across as a desperate man out for revenge” (Shakespeare Bulletin pgs 12-13). On top of breaking her father’s heart Jessica also breaks his bank by swiping a good amount of his money. By this time Shylock is very angry and can no longer hide his dislike for the Christians. He blames Antonio for his daughter’s actions and acts harshly towards him when Antonio cannot pay the bond. However can one blame him? Remember Antonio told him, “Thou mayst with better face exact the penalty” (Act I, Scene 3). That is exactly what Shylock is doing. Unfortunately for him Portia, disguised as a lawyer, cleverly twists the laws to not only save Antonio but to also benefit him. She first tells Shylock that he may exact the penalty but may not draw blood. Knowing that this is impossible Shylock attempts to just take the money, which is rightfully his. However Portia says it is too late and continues, formally charging the Jew with attempted murder. The penalty for this strips him of his entire fortune. Antonio, seeing an opportunity to destroy the Jew forever, allows Shylock to keep half of his money if he renounces Judaism and accepts Christianity. Shylock, having really no choice, agrees. When he exits for the final time Shylock leaves without a daughter, half his fortune, and his heritage. Losing so much would be tragic to anyone and Shylock is no exception. One can only wonder what happens to him after the play ends. Many people feel that the loss of his heritage was unnecessary. Christ Early writes, “Though his (Shylock’s) demands for a pound of flesh are extremely harsh, they were based on a solid agreement between him and a Christian (Antonio). The use of trickery in robbing Shylock of his heritage seems to be against any Christian doctrine known today” (“Acculturation of Shylock”).

Now that one has heard both sides of the argument one must decide as to where Shylock fits. I mean is he a villain or a victim? After much deliberation there is still much indecision as to what to classify him as. On one side he is just trying to retrieve his bond. But on the other side, the bond that he is just trying to retrieve is a pound of human flesh. However after much deliberation I came to the conclusion that Shylock was merely a victim of the time. I mean granted he was not perfect, but then again, who is? Shylock was not supposed to be some kind of prophet. He was supposed to be a man, which he was. Every man has different types of vices. If we didn’t then we would equal God, which we do not. The main argument about Shylock being a villain is the bond. However before one considers this demand monstrous they must first understand the circumstances of it. During that time it was only Jews that were circumcised. Christians looked down upon the Jews for cutting off some of their flesh (“Shakespeare and the Jews” pgs 114-116). For Shylock, what better way to extract revenge on a Christian than to remove some of his flesh; the very reason the Christians despised the Jews. In that aspect his demand was not monstrous, but vengeful. Vengefulness, although a sin, seems a perfectly normal reaction considering the things Antonio had done to Shylock. The other argument against Shylock being a victim was his insistence on the forfeiture. People ask why would he not accept the money. Not only would it have made the deal fair, but also he would have profited from it. This is even harder to believe when taking into consideration Shylock’s greed. He seemed to posses a drive to hoard money rather than spend it. Antonio was just the opposite, possessing a drive to loan money rather than hoard or spend it. This may be another reason as to why the two were at opposing ends throughout the play. Getting back to the forfeiture dilemma, Shylock was asked numerous times to disregard his and Antonio’s agreement, accept the money from Bassanio and be on his way. However why should he do that? Antonio was a competent man who got himself into the situation. Bernard Grebanier writes, “Antonio, in short, finds nothing particularly sensational in the idea of staking a pound of his flesh in the signing of the contract” (Truth About Shylock pg 98). By finding nothing wrong in signing the contract than he must surely find nothing wrong in living up to it. That is Shylock’s thinking when he enters the courtroom expecting to receive what is rightfully his. Granted his actions were not solely based on getting what was owed to him (otherwise he would have taken the money), but like I said before Shylock was a human with imperfect desires. Part of Shylock wants what is his, but the other half wants revenge on Antonio. The fact of the matter is that no matter what Shylock’s intentions were, Antonio still owed him. When Shylock delivers his now famous speech, “I am a Jew. 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 diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is” (Act III, Scene 1), he is defending his entitlement to the bond. Bruce Broehrer writes that, “Such language generates a context in which to refuse Shylock his bond means denying him his flesh and blood, and so denying his flesh and blood, his right to human recognition” (“Shylock” pgs 152-170). I believe that Antonio should have quietly lived up to his consequences like a man. Instead he cries to Bassanio who goes to save him. Unfortunately for Shylock, Bassanio mentions the scenario to Portia who ends up being Antonio’s savior. The play ends with a broken and destroyed Shylock leaving the set. How can someone not feel sympathy for the man? I do not believe he go what he deserved. In actuality I do not think he did anything morally wrong. Conversely I do not think he did anything morally right either. In that aspect I believe that Shylock deserves neither benefits nor punishments. However life is not always fair and he does receive punishment, which in my view makes Shylock the ultimate victim.