WAS SHAKESPEARE A RACIST?

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE

WAS SHAKESPEARE A RACIST?

DID HE SUPPORT THE GROUP IN POWER?

In some of his plays Shakespeare (1564-1616) dwells on the problems which arise from power, their origins, their deviations and their consequences. In The Merchant of Venice (1596?) even where Shakespeare is able to appear sympathetic to the outsiders in his society, he tends to support the values of the group in power and thus to maintain the group in power and the status quo.

The story line of the play is uncomplicated. Antonio, the merchant, signs a bond in order to borrow money from Shylock, a Jew, for Bassanio, the lover of Portia. If the loan were paid within three months, only the principal would be required; if not, the Jew should be at liberty to claim a pound of flesh from Antonio’s body. The ships of Antonio being delayed, the merchant was unable to meet his bill, and the Jew claimed the forfeiture. Portia in the dress of a law doctor, conducted the defence and saved Antonio by reminding the Jew that the pound of flesh gave him no drop of blood.

In this play the outsider is Shylock the Jewish money-lender, whilst the group in power are the members of the Christian nobility, namely, Antonio, Portia, Bassanio and their friends. Shakespeare certainly ‘appears’ sympathetic towards Shylock and gives some good reasons why the audience should have sympathy for him as we shall see later. As the play develops, however, Shylock’s actions reveal that he is repulsive and unattractive, even though his actions and general attitude are in response to his enemies’ treatment of him. By emphasising the commendable values condemns Shylock. Thus in the long run we see where Shakespeare’s preferences lie, that is, that the friendship, love and harmony of the Christian group, despite the fact that their sense of revenge is not dissimilar to Shylock’s, should be preferred.

One can see Shylock the Jew as either the villain or as the wronged outcast. Both approaches are extremes. By revealing Shylock’s cruelty and cunning, Shakespeare depicts him as one to be despised. On the other hand, the treatment the money-lender receives from the Christian group in power deserves our pity. Generally speaking, although Shakespeare appears to want us to sympathise with Shylock, in fact he does the opposite. By indirectly praising the nobility and rewarding it, Shakespeare condemns the Jewish money-lender. The play, therefore, although it problemises the situation and makes judgement difficult if not impossible, the conclusion reached at the end of the play where we find the nobility rewarded and the outcast punished makes Shakespeare appear more sympathetic towards the ruling class.

Shylock is a Jew, an outsider in Shakespeare’s society. Shakespeare’s audience, as all European countries at the time, were prejudiced against the Jews. Prejudice against the Jews in continental Europe was more violent, where they were confined to ghettos. The practice of usury, denounced by the Christian Church, was sufficient to inspire hatred against the Jewish race, a hatred which no doubt was temporarily intensified by the trial and hanging of Dr Roderigo Lopez, a Jewish physician to Queen Elizabeth, and a spy for Spain, for his alleged attempt to poison the Queen in 1594.1 The Jewish people were traditionally associated with witchcraft and child-stealing, blamed for natural disasters and generally regarded as cruel, loathsome, the scum of the earth and worse than dogs. Shakespeare was brought up in an accepted tradition of anti-Semitism which he may have questioned but never rebelled against.2
Shakespeare gives Shylock some convincing human reasons why he should hate his Christian persecutors. On the surface the playwright seems to echo Sir Walter Raleigh’s comment: “Shylock is a man more sinned against than sinning...[he] pleads the cause of the common humanity against the cruelties of prejudice and has in it something of the nobility of patriotic passion.”3 Two of Shylock’s reasons for his revenge on Antonio are that the Christian merchant lends money gratis, thus endangering Shylock’s own livelihood as money-lender in Venice (1:3:40-41), and because of Antonio’s vile habit of spitting on Shylock’s beard and calling him cut-throat dog. Antonio has no desire to change:
“I am as like to call thee so again,
To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too.” (1:3:122-123)

In two great speeches Shakespeare makes Shylock look human, deserving of sympathy and a mouthpiece for the whole persecuted nation. The first is his passionate rhetoric to Salarino:
“He [Antonio] hath disgrac’d me...laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation...and what’s the reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes?... hands...affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons...as a Christian is... if a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge!” (3:1:46-63 passim)

Shylock’s plea here is not for tolerance but revenge, which, he says, is also a Christian practice. It is difficult to ignore Shylock’s charge and logic. This is not complimentary in view of Antonio’s insults and Gratiano’s eagerness to meet vengeance with vengeance. It is noted that Shylock’s charges are not effectively answered, except perhaps in the “Quality of Mercy” speech. As a point of debate Shakespeare wants to show Shylock’s humanity, and though an usurer and a Jew, he is still a man. Shylock’s argument for Jewish and Christian kinship is based only on fleshly similarities. Shylock’s speech may give the impression that he is pleading for sympathy but actually he is putting up his case why he should also take revenge as Christians do. Shylock tries to put himself on the same level of the rest of society by indicating that he also has feelings. Therefore he should also take his revenge as the Christians. However his kind of argument would have been ridiculed by the Elizabethan society who regarded minority groups such as the Jews outcasts of society. Yes, social prejudices would have been very high. For Elizabethan audiences the laughable aspect of his argument is that he cannot understand his alienation from the Christian world because he is an outcast Jew, different to the rest of society and therefore has no equal rights to anything, least of all revenge.

The second speech that creates a sense of sympathy for Shylock is his answer to the Duke’s appeal for mercy at the trial:
“You have among you many a purchas’d slave,
Which, like your asses and your dogs and mules,
You use in abject and in slavish parts,
Because you bought them: shall I say to you,
Let them be free, marry them to your heirs?
............................................You will answer
‘The slaves are ours’: so do I answer you:
The pound of flesh, which I demand of him,
Is dearly bought; ’tis mine and I will have it.” (4:1:89-99)
Shylock argues that the pound of flesh is now his, as it would be foolish to ask the Christians to part with their slaves. Although this argument sounds less convincing than the previous speech, the Duke’s plea for mercy looks artificial on account of the equally unmerciful Christian behaviour.

What evidence do we have of the contrary, that is, that Shylock is more a man sinning than sinned against? The loss of his daughter Jessica seems to Shylock a trifle compared with the loss of his money and jewels (2:8:24). Her loss is almost nothing to Shylock. He is more concerned about the loss of his money and precious jewels. It would have been the opinion of the society of that time to regard Shylock as a villain because of his attitude towards his daughter. Jessica’s elopement, her hatred of her father and hellish home (2:3:2), her flight with the Christian Lorenzo, and her theft are to a large extent all justified in the eyes of the Elizabethan and Christian audiences. No doubt, that despite the intense racial prejudice against the Jewish nation some people in the audience would feel some qualm and would judge the matter according to their conscience. Moreover, Jessica’s sympathy for “poor Antonio” (3:2:281-285) brands Shylock as an outcast, not only from the Christian world but from all humanity. Shylock makes himself appear a complete villain by his diabolical wish, “I would my daughter were dead at my feet and the jewels in her ear” (3:1:77).

There is not one line in the entire play in which Shylock expresses affection for his daughter. Jessica’s values are not those of her father. Her unhappiness at home is substantiated by the Shylock who goes to dinner in “hate, to feed upon the prodigal Christian [Bassanio]” (2:5:15), who scorns music and merriment, instructs Jessica to “let not the sound of shallow poppery enter my sober house”, and leaves her behind locked doors (2:5:28-35). Shakespeare depicts Shylock unable to express affection, whilst Antonio, for all his faults, is portrayed as one who understands what love is all about. Shakespeare characterises Shylock as cruel and repulsive with the aim that society might turn to the nobility and its attractive elements of love and generosity.

Shylock despises Antonio. From the moment he creates the bond, Shylock longs for forfeiture, and reminds Antonio’s friends, “Let Antonio look to his bond” (3:1:43). He is willing to take an outside chance that his fondest dream of vengeance will be fulfilled and he would carve from Antonio a pound of flesh. So engrossed in revenge, Shylock refuses to give to the Duke his reason why he prefers “a weight of carrion flesh” (4:1:41) to three thousand ducats. Shylock’s point would be that his reason is not relevant to this aspect of the bond. There is nothing more fiendish to a Christian audience than to demand death for a noble, generous gentleman as Antonio, without a reason!

It was the duty of all Renaissance Christians to bring everyone into the noble Christian household. Launcelot’s leaving Shylock and joining in Bassanio’s service is an indication of the clown’s salvation from the alleged barbaric and evil ways of the Jewish usurer. By this episode of Launcelot deserting his master Shylock whom he describes as mean and “the very devil incarnal” (2:2:23), and by the tormenting of Shylock by Tubal (a Jew and a fellow-usurer) (3:1:105), we are led to believe that Shylock does not deserve sympathy. It has been suggested that by emphasising the loss of money and jewels through Jessica’s elopement, Tubal was really tormenting or torturing Shylock perhaps for some grudge he might have had for Shylock, or because of jealousy.

Though Shakespeare gives good reasons for Shylock’s vengefulness, which we see acted out by the other characters, he also makes him an object of contempt and derision. A Jew’s revenge on a Christian, however good its reasons, would be viewed as an atrocity, and Christian persecution as justifiable retaliation. It is clear that Shakespeare deliberately weighted the scales very heavily against the Jew. Any transient sympathy for Shylock disappears in support of the values of the group in power, the nobility. Shakespeare wants us to know that the nobility’s attributes for friendship, generosity and love are to be honoured, commended and approved whilst Shylock’s avarice and vengeful spirit are to be condemned. Thus in the play Shakespeare creates a number of rewards to those who show noble values.

To emphasise, therefore, the attractiveness of the nobility - and Antonio as a merchant would have been regarded by the Elizabethan society as a member of the upper class, the group in power, and thus by association, part of the nobility, the genteel society - Shakespeare puts the spotlight on Antonio’s generosity, friendliness and calm endurance. He is extolled by his many friends, especially Bassanio who declares to Portia:
“The dearest friend to me, the kindest man,
The best condition’d and the unweari’d spirit
In doing courtesies, and in whom
The ancient Roman honour more appears
Than any that draws breath in Italy.” (3:2:287-291)
Antonio goes as far as borrowing from his arch-enemy Shylock to finance Bassanio’s courtship and signing such a sinister bond that even Bassanio is alarmed at the risk involved. As an effective symbol of wronged innocence, Antonio appears helpless and down trodden, thus evoking more sympathy. This makes Shylock’s revenge look monstrous and Portia’s verdict presumably just. Shylock’s failed attempt to get his pound of flesh makes him look more monstrous in the eyes of society and thus Antonio even more attractive than before. As soon as Shylock’s plot is foiled, Antonio stands out as an even more ideal Christian gentleman, a perfect example for the group in power to emulate.

Antonio is the exemplary Renaissance man. He represents the idea of nobility in friendship. Shakespeare and his contemporaries fully believed that nobility in friendship reflected nobility of heart. We are constantly reminded of the extent of Antonio’s virtues. He promises Bassanio his “purse”, his “person” and his “extremist means” (1:1:138) to win for himself lady Portia. Before the trial, Portia, learning of Antonio’s danger, unhesitatingly sends away her newly acquired husband Bassanio with an offer of payment to Shylock:
“Pay him six thousand and deface the bond.
Double six thousand, and then treble that,
Before a friend of this description
Shall lose a hair through Bassanio’s fault.” (3:2:300-304)
Given power over his “murderer” Shylock, he seeks the man’s salvation and not his destruction as he recommends that Shylock should be made a Christian. Provided with the means of restoring his lost wealth, he thinks first of Lorenzo and Jessica whom he wants to inherit Shylock’s wealth (4:1:386), even though his ships do come in after all. In the trial scene he also meets Shylock’s senseless rage with “quietness of spirit” (4:1:12). In the end Antonio’s friendship and generosity are rewarded. He does not fall victim to Shylock’s revenge, but instead, his circle of friends increases through Portia and her household.

There are bountiful rewards also for the noble and handsome Bassanio. He wins Portia and her fortune. For his sake, she wishes that she were “A thousand times more fair, / Ten thousand times as rich” (3:2:154). In the world of romance, money and love are complementary to each other. Riches, according to the play, are merely another expression of the happy wealth and plenty surrounding the Christian world. Even though this is a marvellous justification for greed, the group in power is made to appear to be accepted and preferred and recognised as ideal. Thus its ways are justified.

Love also comes to Jessica and Lorenzo. Her disassociation from the isolated life in her father’s house signifies her freedom from evil and corruption. For the Elizabethan Christian audience Jessica’s deception and theft would be tolerated acts because her marriage to Lorenzo is the only means of her salvation. By becoming a Christian through her marriage, she is abundantly rewarded. She enters the world of Belmont where love, friendship, generosity and wealth abound. Of course there is irony in all of this. But the Elizabethan society, even though she steals from her father, is driven to the point of blind approval of her elopement.

The nobility returns to Belmont. No one mentions ducats, bonds or knives. Shylock is forgotten, the nobility is intact and Shakespeare has delivered his message - the virtue of the ideal Christian world rewards itself and casts away its enemies at all levels - Portia her un-Christian suitors, Jessica her heritage, and Antonio his antagonist. Although our sympathies might be aroused because Shylock is shown no mercy and he leaves the court a suffering and broken old man, we are also amazed at those who hate him who receive much more than they are entitled to. The status quo has been approved and preserved and once again good, despite its many weaknesses, has triumphed over what is envisaged as evil. Approval, however, is no guarantee that a thing is right in itself, but that hopefully its faults are few.
* * * * *

NOTES
The quotations followed by their act, scene and verse number are from the following text:
SHAKESPEARE , The Merchant of Venice, edited by Taylor A. B., Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1953.
1. SHAKESPEARE, The Merchant of Venice, edited by Taylor A. B., Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1953, p. 19.
2. EDITORIAL BOARD, The Merchant of Venice, Coles Notes, Coles Publishing Co., Canada, (no date), p. 17.
3. SHAKESPEARE, loc. cit..
ESSAY COMPLETED ON 20.7.1983

JOE SALIBA