Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice really puts into perspective how Elizabethan England viewed the Jewish people. The very presence of a Jew within the play is clearly meant to be distinctive, made obvious by the fact that the alternate title for the play is The Jew of Venice. The character of Shylock is immediately introduced in clear, uncompromising terms that obviously adhere to a pre-set stereotype commonly associated with Jews at the time. He is presented as a miser, a surly and suspicious money-pinching man obsessed with material goods and wealth—a damning view on the part of Christians, who view this as being tied down to the sins of the material world, forsaking spiritual well-being and heavenly redemption in favor of the vices of sinful, worldly pleasures. Shylock is also represented as being eternally sullen and resentful of all the Christians he comes across, regardless of history or demeanor, accusing them of judging him as a filthy, un-Godly man due to his success in trade and personal interest in maintaining his security and wealth; he maintains that they are continually looking down upon his people unless they require money, at which point they fall upon him and his like wolves. All the while, however, his arguments and resentment directed towards the Christian characters only serve to present them as those in the right and moral end of the arrangement, being accused of ill-manners and depravity despite their utmost efforts at good manners and polite behavior, thus reducing Shylock’s complaints to rank hypocrisy. All this serves to present a striking contrast between those in the “right”—the Christian people of Venice and, by extension, the audience as well—and those in the “wrong”—the Jewish people as seen around the world, thus further ingraining the impressions of the English people.
The all-around character of Shylock is obviously exaggerated, feeding into widely-held stereotypes and prejudices to create a character purely designed to be the play’s ‘fool.’ His hugely exaggerated and apparently typical reactions and behaviors are a clear invitation to comedy, a wide-scale parody inviting the mockery of the audience at large; and his greedy, materialistic values are foreshadowed as being threatening towards Antonio, the main sympathetic character of the play. This makes him an exceedingly easy and satisfying character for the audience to rail against, free of any redeeming qualities that might otherwise provoke some kind of sympathy on behalf of the spectators. In short, he is a true caricature that Shakespeare utilizes in full, to add an element of prejudiced comedy as well as a villain who, rather being presented as dangerous and dastardly, is far too easy to mock.
5 comments:
Would it be foolhardy to suggest that perhaps Shakespeare is not an anti-Semite, but rather satirizing the "ancient grudge" (1.3.42) between Jews and Christians that fuels Shylock's animosity? I have not read Merchant of Venice, but it seems as though the play is using the feud for its comedic aspects, as in Much Ado About Nothing, where Beatrice and Benedick's age-old quarreling drives the play forward. I choose to step back from the play's political implications and laugh instead at the irony of Shakespeare's choosing a Jewish villain who loves to complain about being "the bad guy," about being persecuted for his religious beliefs. He expects it, revels in it, and thereby perpetuates it! Absurd and funny, in its own right.
There are elements of Shylock's characterization that are exaggerated, but I don't think that he should only be seen a a caricature created for mocking. He is as complex as any other character in the play, as evidenced by the fact that he is the character that immediately comes to mind whenever someone mentions the Merchant of Venice. I find Bassanio to be more of a fool than Shylock. The disdain and outright hatred with which Antonio treats him elicits a sympathy within the reader that I think I think humanizes him in a way. also, his speech is so intricate and well informed that it makes it hard for me to see him as just another fool. Maybe the audience you are describing is the Elizabethan one and not today's?
A provocative final point and some nice responses--how do we imagine Shakespeare's audience responding to this character? We know from Shylock's speech to Antonio in 1.3 that he might be wearing a "gabardine" that would have marked him as a Jew, but would Shakespeare's company have marked him in other ways (speech, makeup, costume) as well? Possibly, and it would have had a profound effect on the character.
This question is such a challenging one, but I think I am most inclined to agree with Margret's point of view that Shakespeare's writing is anti-Semitic. My overall impression of Shylock's characterization is that it is an unfaltering one which most likely did perpetuate Jewish stereotypes in Shakespeare's time. I feel as though perhaps Shakespeare was trying to juxtapose notions of "Christian generosity" with stereotypes of "Jewish miserliness". Considering how esteemed and cherished Shakespeare is in the literary world (and in general), I wonder if people today are slightly afraid to label Shakespeare as an anti-Semite.
However, I am very curious as to how this play resonated with the Elizabethan audience in comparison to how it resonates today with its modern audience. My inclination is that the modern audience reads this play much differently, with a more sympathetic eye, than the Elizabethan audience did. I think Therese makes a valid observation in distinguishing modern verses past interpretations.However, it is important to keep in mind that Shakespeare was writing for his audience (which consisted of a very large anti-Semitic population)when considering the question of whether Shakespeare is anti-Semitic or not. Whether he was indulging his audience's prejudice or chastising them for it will probably always be debated.
Post a Comment