It is interesting to consider how what is supposed to be the greatest good in the world can cause so much bad. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different religions, and no two are exactly alike. Some believe in one god and others believe in many. Some see their deities as benign, and others as malevolent. The differences are endless, but one common theme that all share is a sense of morality, whether this manifests itself as the deciding factor in reaching salvation, such as in Hinduism, or as an accessory to the simple act of faith, such as in Christianity. The fact that almost all followers subscribe to the idea that theirs is the one truth, and an almost complete lack of borders between the many different religions and denominations (at least, to the same extent as countries or states) naturally invites conflict. In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare uses the character of Shylock to highlight how even religion, which is typically seen as a positive influence on an individual’s life, can be corrupted so as to cause conflict.
Despite having settled in England centuries before and having a significant presence, in the late 16th century, Jews were still heavily persecuted. In addition to being forced to live separately from the rest of the general population, other restrictions were imposed, such as:
They were only allowed to leave during the day and were locked inside at night. Jews were only permitted to work at pawn shops, act as money lenders, work the Hebrew printing press, trade in textiles or practice medicine. Detailed banking laws kept their interest rates low and made life difficult for many of the poor pawnbrokers and moneylenders. (“Venice, Italy”)
All of these rules were set in place not because of some empiric evidence of wrongdoing, malice, or enmity, but simply because the Jewish faith didn’t recognize the same god as the majority of the country.
Discontent between Jews and Christians ran deeper than written rules. Critical to this unrest is the overlap between facets of each religion. Both acknowledged the laws of the Christian Old Testament, called the Torah by the Jews. However, Christians believed that they were exempt from the old laws, seeing as how they were fulfilled by the crucifixion of Jesus, while Jews still followed them. Optimistically, it could simply be seen as ignorance, but the more fervent believers saw the other as a perversion of their own religion. This caused even the simple act of referring to someone as a Jew to have a negative connotation (Kaplan 244-5).
All of this discontent is displayed through the character of Shylock. When Antonio comes to him to ask for a loan, Shylock describes “many a time and oft” in which he was spit on and publicly reprimanded. Antonio does not deny these, and goes so far as to say that it will most likely happen again (1.3.97-122). In fact, when Antonio first approaches him, Shylock, in a monologue to the audience, states that he hates him for being a Christian (1.3.32). This hatred between Christians and Jews ran deep. It pervaded every aspect of life. There is no evidence of an argument between these Antonio and Shylock; rather, these confrontations were spontaneous acts of animosity based solely on differing religions.
All of this comes to a head during Antonio’s trial. Despite many pleas for mercy, Shylock is intent on collecting his collateral of a pound of flesh, and refuses to compromise. He declines an amount equal to double the initial loan, and is called “an inhuman wretch/ Uncapable of pity, void and empty/ From any dram of mercy” by the duke (4.1.4-87). His intent on carrying out the terms of the contract are multifaceted. After being publicly humiliated by Antonio on several occasions, Shylock undoubtedly carries a grudge against him. Another possibility is that this entire trial wasn’t just a personal vendetta, but rather, one against the entire Christian faith. A lifetime of being persecuted would take its toll on anyone, and that was a perfect opportunity to manifest itself. If Shylock saw this as a chance to strike the Christian faith, even if it was just one individual, it would be hard to pass up.
As the antagonist of the play, it is very easy to see Shylock, and by extent the Jewish faith, as villainous. His clear intent to collect the cruel penalty of a pound of human flesh does little to help him. One can’t help but wonder, though, how much of his intentions were a product of his environment. Shylock is portrayed as being callous, even spiteful, but who is to say that Antonio would not have turned out the same way? Publically humiliating someone takes a lot of contempt, and it isn’t very far-fetched to imagine that, had the roles been reversed, it would have turned out much the same way. Hatred is universal.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William, and M. Lindsay. Kaplan. The Merchant of Venice: Texts and Contexts. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. Print.
“Venice, Italy.” Jewish History Tour. Virtual Jewish World, n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.