Few Shakespearean plays have generated as much controversy and debate over the centuries as has The Merchant of Venice. This potentially tragic play masks itself in comedy, giving its audience a glimpse of the social prejudices inherent in Renaissance Europe. But just as the audience receives this look, all seriousness of thought is quickly ripped from them, and apathy is allowed to persist while laughter embellishes their social ills. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay It is difficult to determine Shakespeare's intention in creating this play. Is he anti-Semitic or does he criticize anti-Semitism? Or does it simply represent the anti-Semitism of the time without Shakespeare's commentary? Some critics see Shylock as the villain and a pure characterization of Jewish opinion at the time. While others see him as a victim, receiving some sympathy from Shakespeare. Although we would like to think that Shakespeare's genius is beyond these prejudices, most critics, taking all considerations into account, tend to believe that Shakespeare was simply following the anti-Semitic tradition of that period. When we understand both the historical context of his play and the preconceptions of his audience, it is easier to believe that Shakespeare was not seeking to denounce social ills; he was just playing in it. We must also remember that although we tend to grasp deeper meanings and understandings as modern readers, The Merchant of Venice was not originally intended to be read, but to be performed. As a result, it is very likely that the intense seriousness of the play could barely be detected when it was performed in Shakespeare's time. This can easily be inferred from what we know about Shakespearean theater and the simple fact that the play itself is classified as a comedy. In order to validate this judgment, one requires a solid understanding of both the cultural opinion of Jews and historical events preceding the writing of The Merchant of Venice. Within the majority of European society, Jews were not only persecuted outcasts, but they were also feared as agents of the devil. “The Jew was a sacred figure, more similar to the image of the vampire than to a simple social stereotype as one might have imagined. of a mountain man, a spic, a bohemian or a nerd” (Myers 33). The legends created a very evil representation of the Jews in the minds of the Gentile nations. The Catholic Church also did much to create and maintain this false image: "Church sermons nonetheless proclaimed Jews as 'hard-hearted blasphemers, who were also conceited, ostentatious, and deceitful,' and encouraged association of the “evil Jew” with avarice. " (Rosenheim 157). As scholar Hyam Maccoby writes: "Many Christians came to believe that Jews had cloven feet and tails and suffered from innate bad odor and diseases of the blood, for which they sought remedies in vampirism were only details” (Myers 34). Finally, as GK Hunter points out, the Renaissance perception of Jewishness can only be understood historically as a morally corrupt condition, "one that rejected Christ and chose Barabbas, rejected the Savior and chose the thief, rejected the spirit and chose the flesh, rejected the treasure.” who is in heaven and has chosen the treasure which is on earth” (Rosenheim 157). In addition to the already severe preconceived prejudices against Jews, there were also manyhistorical and social events preceding Shakespeare's writing of The Merchant of Venice, which could have caused even more anti-Semitism in the minds of his viewers. In 1290, all Jews were expelled from England during the reign of Edward I, and they were not readmitted until 1656 (Myers 33). Throughout the period in which Jews were officially expelled from England, legends, folklore and ballads maintained the negative image of the Jew. Another mode of transmission of this image of the Jew was through medieval mystery plays performed in churches and public squares at regular times of the year. In these plays, many of the villains were Jewish and were satirized with clownish costumes, such as a bottle nose and a scary red wig (Myers 34). But anti-Semitism reached its peak in the decade preceding the writing of The Merchant of Venice. Two events are at the origin of this rise in prejudice. The first event was the popularity of Christopher Marlowe's play, The Jew of Malta (1592). In this play, Barabas, the Jew (note the biblical reference), is the very nasty, scheming, evil villain of the play. Obviously, this play only fueled the anti-Semitism of the time: "The Jew of Malta became the biggest theatrical success up to that time and fueled the anti-Jewish hysteria that pushed the crowd to mock Lopez so heartily on the gallows. " (Myers 34). The "Lopez" referred to in this passage is Dr. Ruy Lopez, who was tried and executed for allegedly attempting to poison Queen Elizabeth of England (Myers 32-33). This was the second event that caused an anti-Jewish outcry in England. In Act IV, scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice, Gratiano says to Shylock: "Thy currish spirit ruled a wolf who, hanged for human slaughter, even of the. gallows floated his fallen soul, and... infused itself into you Most critics now believe this is a reference to the execution by hanging of Dr. Lopez. Lopez's name was. frequently spelled "Lopus", which easily corresponds to the Latin word for wolf (Myers 32) It is not a stretch to assume that this allusion would have been clearly understood by Shakespeare's audience, bringing a harsh reality and deep-seated prejudices. to the character of Shylock, social preconceptions and historical treatment of Jews before the first performance of The Merchant of Venice greatly influenced the audience's reception of Shylock, and whether or not Shakespeare intended to write a novel. anti-Semitic piece, that would certainly be the case. received and understood from this angle. From this perspective, it is not difficult for us to assume that Shakespeare understood the social prejudices of his culture when writing The Merchant of Venice, knowing full well that this would create an anti-Jewish tone in his play, especially for commoners. But is it possible that there is a duel objective in this room? Feeding the audience's desire for the stereotypical, mean Jew would have made the play excellent entertainment for anyone just looking for a good laugh. But what if Shakespeare really intended for political and intellectual actors to receive a deeper, more disturbing message from Merchant? This is my proposal. The setting of the play is in Venice for a very specific purpose, it constitutes an alternative social prototype. Venice was a city of trade and mercantilism, making it the richest city in Renaissance Europe. Because it was a city of traders, “Venice was full of foreigners: Turks, Jews, Arabs, Africans, and Christians of various nationalities and faiths” (Maus 1081). This diversified company made itideal location for Shakespeare's two ethnic plays, Othello and The Merchant of Venice. “Venice thus provided Shakespeare with an example – perhaps the only example in 16th-century Europe – of a place where people with little in common culturally could coexist peacefully only because it was materially expedient” (Maus 1083). This provided a very believable setting for characters of exotic ethnic origins, such as Shylock and Othello, given that Jews and Moors were exiled from England and most of Europe. These exotic characters not only attracted the audience's curiosity, but the apparent "evil" nature of these strangers also brought an element of fear and heightened anticipation to the plays, like a modern-day character a "thriller" film would be. In the description of the Venetian scene, there was never the slightest implication that these foreigners were accepted by Christian society. Although Jews were allowed in Venice, they were not necessarily welcome, "there was the need for the Jew's services on the one hand, and the contempt for his person, on the other" (Picker 174). The Jews of Venice were denied many of the rights enjoyed by local Christians. For example, they were not allowed to live in the same communities as Christians, which tended to exclude them from the nicer areas of the city. In 1516, as the Jewish population continued to grow, Christian Venetians responded to the threat of their growing presence by legislating their confinement to a specified neighborhood called the geto nuovo, from which the word "ghetto" comes (Picker 174). At a safe distance from Christian homes, Jewish heterodoxy was no longer a threat, but on the market, loans from Jewish loan sharks were highly coveted by Christians. “Thus, the very configuration of Venice reproduced the paradoxical desire of Christians to embrace desperately needed Jewish money while avoiding the Jews who possessed it” (Picker 174). Having fully understood the basis upon which Merchant was written, we can take a closer look at the play itself. In Merchant we first meet the shrewd and intelligent Shylock in his dialogue with Bassanio and Antonio when they approach him for the sole purpose of taking out a loan of three thousand ducats. Shylock: Three thousand ducats? well. Bassanio: Yes, sir, for three months. Shylock: For three months? well. Bassanio: For which, as I told you, Antonio will be bound. Shylock: Antonio will be bound? well. Bassanio: Can you replace me? Do you want to please me? Should I know your answer?Shylock: Three thousand ducats for three months, and Antonio bound.Bassanio: Your answer to that.Shylock: Antonio is a good man. (1.3.1-11) In this passage, Shylock displays his resentment towards the treatment he had previously received from Antonio and Bassanio by cleverly manipulating their dialogue. He uses repetition both to attract Bassanio and to challenge Bassanio's attempts to impose limits on their communication, "through pauses, repetitions and a final pun on the moral and economic connotations of 'good' . Shylock...disturbs and challenges Bassanio by remaining linguistically and economically unengageable” (Picker 175). Once Antonio enters the picture, subtle insubordination turns into outright defiance. Antonio enters without wanting to speak directly to Shylock, only wanting to use him for his money; asking Bassanio, “Is he still possessed/how much would you like him to?” (1.3.61-2). Picker suggests that this strange comment is actually a direct attack on Shylock in two different ways: "First, it suggests a low pun on so-called 'possession'of the Jew by the devil. This mockery is consistent with Antonio's caustic remark about Shylock later in the scene, that "the devil can quote Scripture for his purposes" (95). Second, in his question, Antonio marginalizes Shylock by speaking of him in the third person despite his presence on stage” (Picker 176). But Shylock refuses to be ignored and interrupts in an attempt to have his presence acknowledged. Following our introduction to the Jew, we are privileged to see his ruse at work, as he once again manipulates the conversation to put himself on top. Shylock does this through his speech about Jacob and Laban in lines 68-72. Shylock: When Jacob was tending his uncle Laban's sheep? This Jacob of our holy Abram was, as his wise mother wrought in his name, the third possessor, yea, he was the third - In this passage Shylock's mastery of conversation is once more demonstrated as he “subtly twists this double meaning to remove the negative connotation of “possession” and align himself with the patriarchs. Thus, he ingeniously suggests that each patriarch "is not 'possessed' by evil because of his Judaism, but, quite the contrary, a 'holder' of God's promise" (Picker 177). What immediate impressions do we receive from Shylock in his first scene? He is stereotypically Jewish, through and through. The character does not change for a moment from being a greedy, cunning, intelligent and proud Jew. What about Antonio and Bassanio? Most would say that their characteristics don't fit very well with the Christian ideal of "loving your enemy," like Christ. But as scholars have warned, “making Christians bad cannot make Shylock good” (Rosenheim 157). My goal, however, is not to make Shylock necessarily good, but to show that Shakespeare displayed a very disturbing social evil. to its more intellectual audience while maintaining a simple plot for commoners. He uses Shylock, a pure Jew through and through, to display the ugliness of our human nature. And this can be best done through a neutral character, he's not trying. to make him intrinsically good or bad, he simply exposes the fact that the Jew is intrinsically human. This understanding of Shylock resonates throughout the play's famous "I am a Jew" speech, in Act II, scene 1, lines 55-69. Shylock: Doesn't a Jew have eyes? Doesn't a Jew have hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed by the same food, wounded by the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and refreshed by the same winter and the same summer as a Christian? If you sting us, don't we bleed? If you tickle us, aren't we laughing? If you poison us, won't we die? And if you wrong us, can't we take revenge? If we are like you in everything else, we will be like you in that. If a Jew wrongs a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge! If a Christian wrongs a Jew, how much should his suffering be by Christian example? Why take revenge! The wickedness that you teach me, I will carry out, and it will be hard but I will improve the instruction. Once again, the meaning of his words is all but stolen from him as Salerio and Solanio mock his heated dialogue. This humiliating mockery serves two purposes. For the commoners, this maintains Shylock's position in the play (and in their culture) as a Jewish clown, allowing their disgust for him to mount with each insult thrown by Salerio and Solanio. But for those searching for meaning, this scene presents Shylock outside of his Jewish heritage, as a true member of the human race: "Shylock doesn't just talk, 1997. 1090-1145.