The Merchant of Venice:

Anti-Semitic?

by

Jack Brimhall

When breaking down The Merchant of Venice in relation to its context, one must ask a very fundamental question: Is the play anti-Semitic? According to the "Athens" Merchant of Venice web-site, “Shakespeare and Anti-Semitism: The Question of Shylock,” there are two views on the plays alleged anti-Semitism. The first is that The Merchant of Venice is anti-Semitic and Shakespeare is an anti-Semite. Athens said the view was that Shakespeare used characters such as Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia as pawns in order to “let the Jew Dog have it” (Athens). “The Jew dog” is, of course, Shylock. Athens even went so far as to say that this view believed the text presented strong evidence of Shakespeare’s purpose to portray Shylock as an “inhuman” villain “whose diabolical cunning” was “bent on gratifying a satanic lust for Christian flesh” (Athens 1).

Conversely, Athens stated the other view people typically have. This view was that The Merchant of Venice “subverts anti-Semitism” and that Shakespeare was a “great humanist because his work resists or transcends the anti-Semitism that was part of” past “Elizabethan culture” (Athens). Athens said that this side typically argues that while certain characters may portray anti-Semitic attitudes, “the play effectively criticizes those attitudes” (Athens). Many people also feel that the play exposes shortcomings equally in Christians as well as Jews.

While Athens may be correct in their analysis of two views that people may have toward the play, I believe a very significant point was missed. The two views given were very radical and extreme. I believe that ordinary people have views that typically fall somewhere in between the two. Most people in the world view Shakespeare as a fantastic writer, not instinctively prejudiced. Also, the average reader of The Merchant of Venice would not give Shakespeare a pass on certain anti-Semitic remarks made in the play just because “his work resists or transcends the anti-Semitism that was part of Elizabethan culture” (Athens). Moreover, how can one say that Shakespeare “resists” anti-Semitism in the play? He actually does just the opposite by using anti-Semitism to evoke a positive response from the crowd. I believe that most people understand the play was written over 400 years ago and appreciate the play for the quality of the writing, not the reasoning behind it.

Proof of this can be found in audience responses to the play. Even in Colorado Springs, “a conservative community with an undercurrent of old-fashioned racism,” this play was a hit. The reason was that the group that performed the play, Shakespeare in the Park, stuck to the text and acted the play “how it was written” (Shakespeare Quarterly 474). However, if the play were performed in a mocking fashion against Jews, people would be offended very easily. On the other hand, if this play were to be performed too politically correct, popularity would drop as well. Just in the last 100 years has this tension grown.

The question of anti-Semitism in The Merchant of Venice has become very important in the production of the play since the Holocaust of WWII. Adolph Hitler’s belief that Jew’s were inferior and therefore should be eradicated - resulted in the death of an estimated six million Jews. Even today, views that even remotely resemble Hitler’s anti-Semitism are taken very seriously. In March of 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) attacked Kosovo, a region of Yugoslavia, in order to stop ethnic cleansing of Albanians by the Serbs (WBE 1). Instances like the two mentioned, change the way in which people respond to plays such as The Merchant of Venice.

Also important to note is that a Jew was a Jew by blood, and nothing could erase that from the Nazis’ minds. Anti-Semites usually do not care if you’re a nice Jew, successful Jew, or a loving Jew; you are still a Jew. Being a Jew was, and in some instances still is, seen as having a flawed faith and being inferior. This same idealism is also present in The Merchant of Venice.

An essential fact is that the audiences of Shakespeare’s age and the contemporary audiences of today are infinitely different. Anti-Semites are widely criticized in contemporary society. Even American reform presidential candidate Pat Buchanan was recently criticized for alleged anti-Semitic remarks made in his autobiography, A Republic, Not an Empire. Buchanan’s remarks, while controversial, were nothing close to slandering Jews in any way. Buchanan's remarks concerned our combat with Hitler. Some scholars and political analysts suggest that it is absurd to accuse Buchanan of such accusations. The point is that there is an acknowledged sensitivity about anti-Semitism in today’s society, and a performance of The Merchant of Venice should reflect that to a certain degree.

Conversely, according to the "Athens" web site, Shakespearean audiences of 400 years ago “based their anti-Semitism on religious ground’s [because the] Elizabethans inherited” the beliefs, taught by the early Church, that the “Jews murdered Christ” and were therefore interconnected “to the devil” (Athens). The Elizabethans also believed that the Jews were actively laboring to defy the swell of Christianity (Athens). Remember, it was just 300 years earlier, in 1290, when the Jews were expelled from England (Athens). The Elizabethan audience would have been immensely pleased at the court’s decision to force Shylock in becoming a Christian. Shakespeare was not forcing his opinions and beliefs on anybody; he was just playing with popular opinion.

The difference in audiences of Shakespeare’s age and the present are astounding. If Shakespeare were alive today, chances are slim that he would write a play even close to The Merchant of Venice. Shakespeare was writing what the Elizabethan audiences wanted to see and nothing more. If Shakespeare himself was anti-Semitic or not, doesn’t really matter. What matters are the play itself and how audiences perceive that play.

Whether one believes the play is anti-Semitic or not, the presentation of characters such as Shylock, should not be altered in order to be politically correct. Performances of the play should be created through an unprejudiced mind and with an in-depth analysis of the text itself. However, one can accomplish these things while still being sympathetic to certain religious views and beliefs.

There are three distinct aspects of the play that show anti-Semitism toward Shylock. They are the processes of Shylock being stripped his name, Shylock being portrayed as non-human, and Shylock being associated with the devil (Athens). Shakespeare, as he does in many other plays, purposefully demonizes Shylock in order to establish a concrete villain. Even Daniel Banes, author of, The Provocative Merchant of Venice, states that because of aspects such as the before mentioned, “Shylock cannot even qualify as a human being; he is a malicious howling animal incapable of rational discourse, or disinclined to use it” (2).

I disagree with Banes and believe that there are certain ways in order to counteract the negativity given off by other characters toward Shylock. Shylock’s speeches, if played confidently, can be very intellectual, well expressed, and extremely persuasive. An example of this can be seen in Shylock’s defense of interest; “Who then conceiving did in eaning time/ Fall parti-colored lambs, and whose were Jacob’s./ This was a way to thrive, and he was blest;/ And thrift is blessing, if men steal it not” (Shakespeare 1.3.298). While there is no denying that Shylock has weaknesses, he still should be portrayed as having strengths as well.

By my amazement, according to Charles Coe’s book Shakespeare’s Villains, Shylock is referred to by name only three times throughout the play (Coe 43). Shylock is frequently referred to as “the Jew." “Athens” also adds that “the Jew is often modified with colorful and derogatory adjectives, such as “dog Jew” (Athens). Calling Shylock “the Jew” accomplishes three things. First, it stamps an icon on Shylock, while taking away his face, feelings, and individuality. Now the level of sympathy that Shylock might have otherwise demanded is significantly lower. People do not sympathize with icons and logos; they sympathize with real people. Shylock is made to look as un-real as possible.

Shylock should be presented as an individual and not the blueprint for the average Jew. An actor should evoke feeling from the audience in order to make himself look authentic. Shylock is not an icon for what’s bad in society, he is an example of hatred that pushed him to a level of hatred himself. The audience should understand the process that Shylock goes through in order to hate Antonio and Catholicism.

Shylock, by the text itself, is also represented as an animal with the utilization of certain symbols in reference to him (Athens). According to "Athens," Gratiano curses Shylock with “O, be thou damned, inexecrable dog! (Shakespeare 4.1.128) whose “currish spirit govern’d a wolf” (Shakespeare 4.1.133-34) and whose “desires are wolvish, bloody, starved, and ravenous” (Shakespeare 4.1.137-38). These references to Shylock help to take away any individuality Shylock has. Shylock is either “the Jew,” an “enexecrable dog,” or “ravenous.” By comparing Shylock to an animal throughout the play, he slowly becomes robbed of his dignity and humanity.

The final aspect that the "Athens" web-site points out is the many references to Shylock as the devil in The Merchant of Venice. Launcelot labels Shylock as “a kind of devil” and “the devil himself” (Shakespeare 2.2.22-24). He even goes so far as to say, “Certainly the Jew is the very devil incarnation” (Shakespeare 2.2.24-25). Solanio also gets in the act by his response to Shylock: “Lest the devil cross my prayer, for here he comes in the likeness of a Jew” (Shakespeare 3.1.19-21). Even Shylock’s daughter connects her father with the devil: “I am sorry thou wilt leave my father so. Our house is hell, and thou, a merry devil…” (Shakespeare 2.3.1-2). Antonio further fortifies the association between Shylock and the devil by noting how Shylock’s arguments remind him how “The devil can cite scripture for his purpose” (Shakespeare 1.3.97-100). Athens points out the significance in these passages because they help to “demonize” Shylock (Athens). These references all help to create an animosity at some level toward Shylock by the audience.

Since Shakespeare takes away Shylock’s name, humanity, and religion, it is crucial to make the audience aware of this. If the audience does not see Shylock loosing his identity, and realize he is not given a chance to create his own, playgoers will only feel enmity toward “the Jew” and not sympathy. The goal should not be to make Shylock the “Falstaff” of villains, but to avoid making him intolerable, voracious, and devilish. Contemporary productions of The Merchant of Venice should try to create some sympathy or at least an understanding of Shylock.

However, creating sympathy for Shylock does create some problems. First, Shylock is the production’s only villain, which should not be altered. Shakespeare wrote in Shylock as the villain and structured the play around him. If Shylock is seen as the victim, the play would be without a miscreant role and the quality of the production would be drastically compromised. However, it is very possible while presenting Shylock as the villain, to create some sense of an understanding by the audience in relation to the actions of the usurer. Shakespeare himself did this with Richard’s opening soliloquy in Richard III. Here, Shakespeare allows the reader to understand the reasoning behind Richard’s actions, and therefore allowed for a more popular character.

In 1814, Edmund Kean presented a Shylock with a new appearance that emphasized a different attitude for the character. In order to get past the anti-Semitic remarks made throughout the play, while still staying true to the text, Kean sought to work against the portrait of “the Jew” as barbarian. Instead, Kean sought to articulate the underlying humanity of Shylock that was being slandered throughout the play (Athens). Kean wore a black wig and beard, and a considerably more contemporary clothes for Shylock (Coe 243). The different wardrobe was very much in contrast to earlier performances of the character. Previously, Shylock was being depicted as having a red beard and false nose. Most critics suggest that the red beard and nose were not especially sympathetic, “and were perhaps even given over to the hyperbole of Marlowe’s villainous Barabas” (Coe 243).

Shylock’s character is an easy target for a villain role. Anyone who hates a man simply because he is a Christian must logically be a villain in Elizabethan times. Still, Shylock can be played with more dignity and seriousness in the role. As an actor, the greatest challenge in the position would be to align the portrayal of Shylock with the audience’s sympathies.

To accomplish this, one would have to search out reasons to justify Shylock’s malice toward the Christian merchant, Antonio. Also, think about the reasons that Shylock is intent on taking “one pound of flesh” from Antonio when it does not further his cause? And, why would Shylock wish that his own “daughter were dead?” (Shakespeare 3.1.84-85). With these questions in mind, one must reveal other characters faults and prejudice to the audience in a more strait forward manner. For example, putting more emphasis on scenes in which Antonio abuses Shylock could help. It is important to make clear to the audience that Shylock is not the only character with deficiencies.

In the late nineteenth century the English actor Henry Irving played Shylock with a different perspective: “I look on Shylock… as the type of a persecuted race; almost the only gentleman in the play, and most ill-used” (Woods 160).

Edwin Booth, a popular late nineteenth century London actor, portrayed Shylock with a more traditional style. Booth’s Shylock was more devious and deferential than Irving’s, which even more complicated the task of creating sympathy for the character. Booth once stated when asked about his Shylock: “My notion of Shylock is one of the traditional type, which I firmly believe to be ‘the Jew which Shakespeare drew’ (Woods 165).” Booth wanted Shylock to have some imperfect qualities shown in Shakespeare’s text; however, Shylock was not to be made a “buffoon” (Woods 165). Booth’s Shylock was to be “strongly marked” and “somewhat grotesque” (Woods 165).

No matter how Shylock’s character is portrayed, one cannot forget the importance of Shylock as a usurer. Usury is the lending of money at interest, however other words used to describe a usurer in the Webster’s Thesaurus are extortionist, blackmailer, bloodsucker, thief, and swindler (476).

The audiences of today are more inclined to be sympathetic with Shylock’s usury than in Elizabethan times. Now, lending money with interest is an everyday American value, in which banks all over the world participate. While this is just more evidence of Anti-Semitism in the play, it is not nearly as important to contemporary audiences. I believe that many contemporary playgoers tend to have more sympathy for Shylock because he is a usurer. It is hard to imagine, for most modern-day audiences, anybody lending large sums of money without interest. Today, spectators may even look upon Antonio as too easily manipulated for his lending tendencies.

On the other hand, values and beliefs were far different in the Shakespearean age. Only four years after The Merchant of Venice was written, Sir Francis Bacon wrote a piece called The Essays. In Bacon’s work it was stated that “the usurer is the greatest Sabbath-breaker, because his plough goeth every Sunday” (Bacon Handout). Bacon also stated that “the discommodities of usury are, First, that it makes fewer merchants” (Bacon Handout). In the case of The Merchant of Venice, Antonio happens to be the Christian merchant while Shylock is the Jew usurer. The Essays show that lending was an important issue during the time The Merchant of Venice was written and performed. It is safe to say that Shakespeare deliberately used the Jew as the usurer and the Christian as the Merchant to please and excite the Elizabethan audiences of the times.

Today, certain lines and scenes in the play lose much influence because of the lack of importance of usury to today’s audiences. For example, Shylock notes Antonio’s hate of usury: “He hates our sacred nation, and he rails,/Even there where merchants most do congregate,/On me, my bargains, and my well-won thrift,/Which he calls interest” (Shakespeare 1.3.45-48). Contemporary audiences would shy away from judging a character on a quality or occupation that is the norm of today.

It is important to understand that evidence in The Merchant of Venice is anything but definitive and clear-cut. Evidence from the play derives only from innuendo’s that may suggest particular patterns or beliefs in a character. Various people and cultures can evaluate these overtones very differently. Readers must decide for themselves whether and to what extent The Merchant of Venice is involved within anti-Semitism. In addition, the way in which The Merchant of Venice is performed should reflect, to a certain degree, what contemporary audience’s values and beliefs are.

©2000 Jack Brimhall. All Rights Reserved. Published by "The Wretched" Through Express Written Permission of the Author.