(Author: Sandra Braude, Vol. 77, # 1, Summer 2022)
Who and what was Shakespeare? Is the Merchant of Venice an antisemitic play? And what is the worth of a pound of flesh? The answer depends of course upon where the flesh comes from. What if it comes from a fish, a cow, a pig – or possibly from a human being? This question is one that underlies the play The Merchant of Venice(hereafter The Merchant), one of the most produced and controversial of Shakespeare’s plays.
There are several major concerns and plots in The Merchant, viz money, religion and love, but the pound of flesh is central to all these concerns. When Antonio the Merchant borrows money from Shylock the Jewish moneylender, he agrees to surrender a pound of flesh should he default on repayment of the loan.
The Merchant is an extraordinary play, unlike any other of Shakespeare’s plays. It was apparently written between 1590 and 1599, and first performed in 1605 by the Kings’ Men at the court of King James. It has since become one of the most popular and performed of Shakespeare’s plays. Initially, and over the subsequent four centuries, it was regarded as a comedy, but as time went on it became recognized as a ‘problem play’.[1]
The two main characters in the play are Antonio, the Merchant, and Shylock, the Moneylender. From the start there are distinct differences between them – the main one is that Antonio is described as a Christian, whereas Shylock is a Jew, and it is on this basis that antagonism arises between them.
According to historical archives Jews first entered England in 1070, at the time of William the Conqueror. They came from Rouen in France, and settled in different parts of England where, on the whole, they fared well. However, being debarred from the guilds and certain occupations on account of being Jews, they were obliged to practise as moneylenders. This tended to arouse animosity against them among the local population, who regarded them as rich and easy targets. During the years 1289-1290 there were vicious massacres and pogroms by the local populace in London and York, and in the latter year King Edward I passed a law expelling Jews from England.[2]
For many years it was believed that the only Jew in England at the time of Queen Elizabeth I was the Portuguese crypto-Jew Roderigo Lopes, the Queen’s physician. He was subsequently accused and convicted of high treason, and was hanged, drawn and quartered. It is now accepted however that not all Jews left England after the expulsion order, and it is most likely that Shakespeare knew and had contact with both Jews and Judaism, these influencing his portrayal of Shylock.
The general populace of England, who neither liked nor understood Jews, retained a distorted memory of them, and viewed them as a different and dangerous people. As a result the image of the Jew in The Merchant and the contemporaneous play by Christopher Marlowe, The Jew of Malta, was viewed by English audiences as realistic.
Marlowe presented a very different kind of Jew from Shakespeare. Barabas in his play was a sort of super monster, without a glimmer of redeeming virtue. Barabas even describes himself to his Turkish slave as a poisoner, a murderer, a thief, a cozener, a usurer and one devoid of humanity. Shylock is not like that. His ‘evil’ qualities have been seen, over centuries of criticism, in that he is a Jew, and that he demands ‘a pound of flesh’ from Antonio should he default on the loan. There is no doubt that Shylock appears as the most significant character in The Merchant. It is interesting that Shakespeare did not call him the Jew of Venice, in the way that Marlowe referred to Barabas as the Jew of Malta.
Many critics have tended to overlook the true significance of Antonio’s character. The fact that the opening speech of the play is that of Antonio, suggests interesting overtones:
In sooth [he says], I know not why I am so sad./It wearies me, you say it wearies you/But how I caught it, found it or came by it,/What stuff ‘tis made of, whereof it is born,/I am to learn;/And such a want-wit sadness makes of me/That I have much ado to know myself. (I,i,1)
Why did Shakespeare set this as his opening speech for The Merchant? The answer must surely be that he was setting the scene for what happens as the play progresses, much as in his sonnets the first couplet indicates how the sonnet will progress. If this is indeed so, then Antonio appears as an individual who is insecure about who he is, and what he does, and this is supported by his later statement in the play, when he confesses that he holds the world but as…a stage where every man must play a part, and (his) a sad one. (I,76)
The question then arises as to who Antonio really is, and what part he is playing?
Despite the fact that Shylock is presented as a Jew and Antonio a Christian, there are certain similarities between them. Both are in business, and both are rich men, and in fact both are money lenders. Shylock is in the money-lending business as being a Jew he is debarred from other business activities, both by State and Church. Antonio, being Christian, is entitled to engage in other businesses, and he speculates in ships carrying valuable cargoes to and from the great city of Venice. He does however lend money, but does not demand interest on his loans to other Christians, for usury is not permitted by the Church; one of the reasons that Shylock declares his animosity towards Antonio is that he brings down the rate of loan-bearing interest in Venice.
When Antonio’s friend, Bassanio, approaches him for a significant loan – 3000 ducats[3] – Antonio is not loath to agree, although he has already lent Bassanio a large sum in the past, and has not been repaid. As all Antonios are at sea, and he is not at this stage in a position to lend the money, he refers Bassanio to Shylock for the loan, assuring him that he will stand surety.
Why does Bassanio need the money? Because he wishes to travel to Belmont to woo Portia, an extremely wealthy young woman. It is clear that Bassanio is not just after a wife, but after a very rich wife, in which case he will be able to repay Antonio for the previous loan.
Bassanio says:
In my schooldays, when I had lost one shaft,/I shot his fellow of the selfsame flight,/The selfsame way, with more advised watch,/To find the other forth, and by adventuring both/I oft found both, I urge this childhood proof/Because what follows is pure innocence./I owe you much, and like a wilful youth,/That which I owe is lost, but if you please/To shoot another arrow that self way/Which you did shoot the first, I do not doubt,/As I will watch the aim or to find both/Or bring your latter hazard back again,/And thankfully rest debtor for the first. (I,i,140)
The fact that Antonio agrees so readily is probably two-fold: firstly, he will get repayment of both loans made to Bassanio, and secondly, there are intimations in the play that he and Bassanio are lovers.
And so Bassanio approaches Shylock to borrow 3000 ducats, for which Antonio will stand surety.
Shylock’s response to the request is ambivalent. Nonetheless, he agrees to give the loan, and to draw up a bond that will bind Antonio. He does not exactly anticipate difficulties, but is aware that ships at sea can run into trouble and fail to return. His language and attitude are different from those of Antonio. He cannot immediately raise the entire amount of the loan, but agrees that Tubal, another Jew, will assist him in doing so. His speeches are reminiscent of Biblical stories, such as when Jacob grazed his Uncle Laban’s sheep and by clever manipulation managed to increase his own stock of sheep. He is clearly a clever man, and bases his thought processes on Biblical texts. Like Antonio, he does not insist on interest, something which he is entitled to do when lending money to Christians. However, he is not permitted to gain interest on loans made to other Jews, so there is already at this stage of the play an intimation that Antonio may not actually be Christian, but Jewish, an intimation that is enforced by a close reading of the rest of the play.
It is Shylock’s perception of Antonio that demonstrates his true feeling, and is an indication of how the play will progress. Looking at Antonio, Shylock says:
How like a fawning publican he looks./I hate him for he is a Christian. (I,iii,37)
Shylock says nothing about hating Christians generally. It is only Antonio that he speaks of hating because he is a Christian. There is something special that makes him speak like this, and when he compares him to a ‘fawning publican’, it is apparent that Shylock envisages him as a crypto-Jew. The word ‘publican’ has a specific connotation. Although in England the word ‘publican’ may refer to a person who owns a ‘pub’, here it more clearly refers to a tax collector – expressed both in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in the Old and New Testaments. Tax collectors were, in the main, Jews. The word ‘fawning’ is also a word that is used in Marlowe’s Jew of Malta, to describe Jewish characteristics. In short, it appears that when Shylock looks at Antonio he sees him not as a Christian but as an apostate Jew who has converted to Christianity.
He also comments on the way that Antonio behaves towards him:
Signor Antonio, many a time and oft/In the Rialto you have rated me/About my moneys and my usances./Still have I borne it with a patient shrugs/For suff’rance is the badge of all our tribe./You call me misbeliever, cut-throat, dog,/And spit upon my Jewish gabardine./And all for use of that which is mine own./Well, then, it now appears you need my help,/Go to, then. You come to me and you say,/‘Shylock, we would have moneys.’ You say so-/You, that did void your rheum upon my beard,/And foot me, as you do a stranger cur/Over your threshold, moneys is your suit./What should I say to you? Should I not say,/‘Hath a dog money? Is it possible/A cur can lend three thousand ducats?’ Or/Shall I bend low, and in a bondman’s key,/With bated breath and whisp’ring humbleness,/Say this, ‘Fair sir, you spat on me on Wednesday last’/You spurned me such a day; another time/You called me dog, and for these courtesies/I’ll lend you thus much moneys?’ (I,iii,105)
There is no doubt that Shylock is angry with Antonio, who continues to berate him, but despite this he agrees to lend Antonio the money – 3000 ducats for a period of three months. The fact that he does not ask for interest is significant. Shylock is not a Christian, and is not therefore constrained by Church or State law in the taking of interest from Christians. So it must be assumed that there is something else to be considered, namely that Jews are not entitled to demand interest on loans given to other Jews. What he does request, however, is that, if the loan is defaulted, ‘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.’ (!,iii,145)’, but he qualifies this apparently vicious statement by saying that it ‘will be in a merry sport.’ In other words, he does not intend it to be taken seriously.
It appears that Shylock is being over clever rather than intentionally murderous towards Antonio. Although he is aware that fate could play a part in the non-return of Antonio’s ships, there is no reason why this should be anticipated at this time. Both men are angry and arrogant, but it is possible that ‘a piece of human flesh’ could suggest something more spiritual than physical. Some critics have ruled that Shylock lacks spirituality, but it is likely that they do not understand the underlying philosophy of the play.
After Shylock and Antonio have entered into a bond, Shylock receives an invitation to dine with Antonio. In fact, because of his Jewishness he will not eat with Antonio, but agrees to accept the invitation. Before leaving his home, he gives his daughter, Jessica, strict instructions:
Hear you me, Jessica:/Lock up my doors, and when you hear the drum/And the vile squealing of the wry-necked fife/Clamber not up to the casement then,/Nor thrust your head into the public street,/To gaze on Christian fools with varnished faces,/But stop my house’s ears – I mean y casements,/Let not the sound of shallow fopp’ry enter/My sober house. (II,v,28)
But Jessica has different intentions. She means to escape and run away, to convert to Christianity and marry Lorenzo, the Christian. At this stage she not only leaves behind her Jewishness, but breaks the bond with her father. The word ‘bond’ in The Merchant refers not only to the document drawn up to confirm the terms of the loan agreement between Antonio and Shylock; it also refer to the bond between father and child, and over and above this it refers to the bond between man and God.
When she leaves her house Jessica enters into a marriage with Lorenzo that will not make her happy. As in the case of Bassanio and his intended marriage with Portia, money is an essential part of the deal, as Lorenzo tells his friends:
I must needs tell thee all. She hath directed/ How I shall take her from her father’s house,/What gold and jewels she is furnished with,/What page’s suit she has in readiness./If e’er the Jew her father come to heaven/It will be for his gentle daughter’s sake;/And never dare misfortune cross her foot/Unless she do it under this excuse/That she is issue to a faithless Jew. (II,1v,29)
The perfidy of Jessica, not only running away to marry a Christian, but also making off with Shylock’s possessions money and prized jewellery, including a precious wedding ring given him by his late wife (which subsequently Jessica sells to buy a monkey) pushes Shylock into a state of madness, and when Antonio’s ships fail to return to Venice within the three month period of the bond, Shylock turns to viciousness, and demands his pound of flesh.
The question now arises as to what the ‘pound of flesh’ actually means. It should be remembered that Shylock stated he was making merry sport at the time of entering into the bond with Antonio. Now it needs to be considered, even in the case of Shylock’s madness, whether he really intended to take a pound of Antonio’s flesh, and if so, from which part of his body? The head? The hand? The heart?
The court scene is a very interesting one. It is, in essence, a Venetian court, and will therefore be subject to Venetian law – or will it?
Portia, with the intention of defending her husband, Bassanio, arrives in male disguise – much as in a masque – and pretends to be a learned lawyer. Her first question when in court is most interesting:
Portia: I am informed thoroughly of the cause./Which is the merchant, and which is the Jew? (IV,I,170)
Can Portia really not tell the difference between the two? Is it possible that, despite difference in dress, the two really look alike? If this is the case it supports the theory that Antonio is actually an apostate Jew, one who converted to Christianity because it benefited him to do so, and that Shylock, asking for a pound of flesh might have been referring to what is known as ‘the circumcised heart’,
The act of circumcision, in religious terms, constitutes an agreement or covenant whereby God makes promises to his people, and requires certain conduct from them. The term ‘circumcised heart’ appears in the Bible, in both the Old and the New Testament, and refers to the spirit, and not the body. (In the liturgy of Yom Kippur the prayers requesting forgiveness cite the sin of the Confused Heart.)
I would like to suggest that Shylock’s intention behind requiring a pound of flesh from Antonio is to make the latter acknowledge that he is in fact a Jewish apostate, and that he should undergo ‘circumcision of the heart’, in order to acknowledge and return to his Jewish roots. This would bring sense to bear on Antonio’s opening speech to the play, in which he stated that he was sad and weary, and that he did not know why, and had ‘much ado’ to know himself.
The concept of the ‘circumcised heart’ however does not enter into the trial scene of The Merchant. Shylock, still obsessed by his anger, continues to whet a knife to cut into Antonio’s body. Portia delivers her speech on the ‘quality of mercy’, which is apparently a ‘Christian quality’, and when this fails to influence Shylock, she asserts that the law must take its course. Throughout Shylock remains obsessed with the law, although whether that is the law of Venice or Jewish law is a matter for consideration. But the law of Venice persists, and Shylock is given the opportunity of cutting out the physical heart of Antonio – but only on the condition that he cuts exactly one pound of flesh, and does not shed a drop of blood.
Portia has shown herself to be extremely clever as a lawyer, and now the case swings against Shylock. He tries to withdraw his case, but it is too late, and now it is possible that his life may be forfeit, on the basis that he has threatened the life of a Venetian Christian. The Christian onlookers are gleeful at this turn of events. But the Duke of Venice, intent on showing ‘Christian mercy’, permits Shylock his life, as long as he relinquishes all his property – one half to the State, and the other half to Antonio.
Shylock is distraught:
Nay, take my life and all! Pardon not that./You take my house when you do take the prop/That doth sustain my house; you take my life/When you do take the means whereby I live. (IV,I,370)
But at the behest of the ‘Christian’ Antonio, Christian leniency is shown to Shylock – on the understanding that he himself now become Christian, and leave whatever he possesses to his daughter and her Christian husband
Shylock is broken, but having no alternative he murmurs:
I am content…./I pray you, give me leave to go from hence./I am not well. Send the deed after me/And I will sign it. (IV,I,387)
And so the play ends, and we, the audience are left to decide whether The Merchant is really an antisemitic play, whether or not it is a comedy or a problem play, and what Shakespeare’s intentions – according to a close reading of the text, really were.
AFTERWORD:
Suffice it to say that an increasing number of people are wary of regarding it as antisemitic, and, with this in mind, I would refer you to a recent biography of Shakespeare, written in French by Ghislain Mueller – Shakespeare – était il Juif? (Shakespeare – was he a Jew?)
This biography of Shakespeare presents a new perspective on the debate surrounding the real identity of William Shakespeare.
Mueller suggests that Shakespeare was a crypto-Jew who took care to hide his Jewish origins, and that the Elizabethan authorities, who were aware of this fact, attempted to eliminate any trace of these origins by making him an Anglo-Saxon hero.
Using official documents that have been employed by other scholars Mueller brings forth evidence that Shakespeare’s father was a Jew living in England, at a time when Jews had been banned since the time of Edward I and the Act of Expulsion in 1290. Mueller introduces proof that Shakespeare was brought up in the Jewish faith, and that many of his closest connections were from Jewish circles. In addition, Shakespeare’s coat of arm, his retirement to Stratford, and his last Will and Testament are further use as evidence that Shakespeare was a Jew.
Whether or not Mueller is correct in his assumptions, there are a number of critics who seriously question the fact that William Shakespeare was indeed the son of the glover John Shakespeare, and that he was born in Stratford. To this day the question of his true identity has not been proven, and there are a number of conspiracy theories, but The Merchant of Venice seriously needs to be studied from the Jewish point of view.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelman, Janet, Blood Relations, University of Chicago Press, 2008
Bell, John, The Time of my Life, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, Sydney, 2002
Gross, John. Shylock: A Legend and its Legacy, 1992
Jacobson, Howard, Shylock is my Name: The Merchant of Venice Retold. Hogarth Shakespeare, 2016
Jaffe, M D, Shylock and the Jewish Question. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999
Landa, M J, The Jew in Drama, P S King and Son Ltd., Westminster, 1926
Mazanoglu, C, Revisiting Shakespeare’s Problem Plays. PhD Thesis, Ankara, 2017
Mendelow, A.A, Shalvi, A, The World and Art of Shakespeare. Israel University Press, Jerusalem, 1967
Mueller, Ghislain, Was Shakespeare a Jew? Uncovering the Marano Influences in his life and Writing, The Edwin Mullen Press, Lewiston, New York, 2016
Shakespeare, William, (1979) Complete Works, ed. Peter Alexander. Collins, London and Glasgow.
Shakespeare, William, The Merchant of Venice, OUP, Oxford, 1993
Tillyard, E M W, Shakespeare’s Problem Plays, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England, 1963
Sandra Braude, a long-standing contributor to Jewish Affairs, is a former lecturer in English at the Goudstadse Onderwysers Kollege. Her fiction and poetry have appeared in a wide array of Jewish publications, locally and internationally.
NOTES
[1] EMI Tillyard, citing the opinion of LJ Potts in his book on comedy, regards the problem play as one that ‘treats the situations that arise in society simply as moral or political problems in the abstract, without reference to the idiosyncrasies of human nature. (p.9)
2 To this day the law has never been repealed. It requires the signature of Elizabeth II to sign the repeal, which she has not done.
3. This is a considerable sum of money. A ducat would have weighed approximately 23.75 grams of high quality gold. Today’s market price would have been approximately 300,000 pounds sterling.
