Despite the casual anti-Semitism and racism which is threaded throughout, The Merchant of Venice remains one of Shakespeare’s
most popular plays.
So how does a modern day audience deal comfortably with such elements?
One way is to consider the play (written around 1597) from within its own political and religious time frame. Christianity had already become the dominant religion through Europe. Jews were personified as vermin or bestialised as dogs, swine or pigs.
Money-lending was a stereotypical career which was traditionally seen as using negative traits of greed, miserliness and corruption.
Shakespeare’s premise suggests that while some mixed marriages might have been tolerated, considerable adjustment was required on the partner who fell outside the “norm” of that society. Note the Prince of Morocco’s rhetorical claim that he would change his hue to please Portia, and Jessica’s conversion from Judaism to Christianity on her marriage to Lorenzo.
As with many of Shakespeare’s comedies, there is very little character development. We must therefore accept that the individuals are inherently as good and noble as he tells us.
Our struggle with this view begins however ,when Antonio comes to Shylock for money and Shylock reminds him of a time when Antonio spat in his face and kicked him:
“You, that did void your rheum upon my beard,
And foot me as you spurn a stranger cur…..
What should I say to you? Should I not say
Hath a dog money? Is it possible a cur can lend three thousand ducats?”
Antonio does not deny the accusation but arrogantly informs Shylock:
“I am as like to call thee so again
To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too”.
Another main character, Portia is portrayed as confident, adventurous, well-learned, generous and warm-hearted. This suggests a liberality which does not match her attitude towards the dark-skinned Prince of Morocco, one of her suitors:
“If he have the condition of a saint and the complexion of a devil,
I had rather he should shrive me than wive me”.
We might wish to assume that the theological beliefs of the time married dark skin and evil as a twin concept. Yet, Portia’s consideration that the Prince might have the “ condition of a saint” does not allow us this luxury of an excuse on her behalf.
Even Shylock’s
daughter Jessica who has married a Christian and converted to Christianity is not safe from hostility. Is it any wonder then that Shylock feels there should be no difference between how the Christians treat him and how he treats them?
“If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge.If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”
It is generally accepted that Shakespeare adapted the play from differing versions originally based in Italian folklore, transferred it to a culturally anti-Semite England, and that in all likelihood had never met anyone Jewish himself.
Yet we find Shylock’s character can be just as easily portrayed with empathy and an element of dignity (perhaps even more so) as it can with scorn and caricature.
It is not difficult to understand Shylock’s reaction hearing of his daughter’s elopement with a man who reviles both his religion and his work. This along with Jessica’s taking of a large sum of money and expensive jewellery increase his hatred of Antonio, whom Shylock believes has helped the couple to stow away.
Shylock’s response to the Court’s demands for mercy is a reminder of their own hypocrisy :
“You have among you many a purchased slave
Which like your asses and your dogs and mules,
You use in abject and in slavish parts
Becauseyou bought them.
Shall I say to you
Let them be free, marry them to your heirs
Why sweat they under burdens?”
In the end, Shylock is entrapped by the discriminatory laws of the land. He not only narrowly escapes with his life, but also forfeits everything he owns. He loses his daughter, his home, his reputation, his money, goods and even his religion. We must remind ourselves this is the result of giving an interest-free loan to someone who despised him anyway.
The Merchant of Venice cannot be properly judged against today’s more enlightened times; in the end we must remember that it is presented as a comedy against the backdrop of an anti-Semitic culture which was then the norm. Subsequently the issue of whether Shakespeare is pandering to this culture, challenging it, or simply using it as a vehicle for comedic effect will be a continuous source of debate.
What is undeniable however, is that he has by whatever means, managed to platform issues which still provide a catalyst for social and economic conflict. In that sense, one might say, the Merchant of Venice has earned its place in modern theological and political debate.