Few Shakespearean works have sparked such controversy and debate over the centuries as The Merchant of Venice has. This potentially tragic comedy masquerades in comedy, offering audiences a glimpse into the social prejudices inherent in Renaissance Europe. But the very moment the audience receives this look, all seriousness of thought is quickly stripped from them and apathy is allowed to remain while laughter embellishes their social ills. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayIt is difficult to determine Shakespeare's intent in creating this play. Are you anti-Semitic or critical of anti-Semitism? Or does it simply represent the anti-Semitism of the day without Shakespeare's commentary? Some critics see Shylock as the villain and a mere characterization of the historical opinion of the Jews. While others see him as a victim, receiving a level of sympathy from Shakespeare. Although we would like to think that Shakespeare's genius is beyond such prejudice, considering all considerations, most critics tend to lean towards the belief that Shakespeare was simply following the anti-Semitic tradition of that period. When you understand both the historical context of his work and the preconceived notions of his audience, it is easier to believe that Shakespeare was making no attempt to denounce social evils; he was simply playing with them. We must also remember that, while we tend to grasp deeper meanings and understandings as modern readers, The Merchant of Venice was originally not intended to be read, but acted. As a result, it is very likely that the intense seriousness of the play could barely be detected if performed in Shakespeare's time. This can easily be deduced from what we know about Shakespearean theater and the simple fact that the play itself is classified as a comedy. To give validity to this judgment, a solid understanding of both the cultural opinion of The Jews and the historical events preceding the writing of The Merchant of Venice is necessary. In most of European society, Jews were not only persecuted outcasts, but were also feared as agents of the devil: "The Jew was a numinous figure, resembling more the image of the vampire than a simple social stereotype as might think." of a hillbilly, a spic, a bohunk, or a nerd" (Myers 33). The legends created a very diabolical representation of the Jews in the minds of the Gentile nations. The Catholic Church also did much to create and maintain this false image: "The sermons of the Church, however, proclaimed Jews as 'hard-hearted blasphemers who were also vain, ostentatious, and deceitful,' and encouraged the association of the 'Jewish devil' with greed." (Rosenheim 157). As the scholar Hyam Maccoby wrote, "Many Christians came to believe that Jews had cloven feet and tails, and that they suffered from an innate bad odor and blood diseases, for which they sought remedies in vampirism. The hooked nose and the funny accent were just details" (Myers 34). Finally, as GK Hunter insists, the Renaissance perception of Jewishness can be understood historically only as a morally corrupt condition, "which rejected Christ and chose Barabbas, rejected the Savior and chose the thief, rejected the spirit and chose the flesh, rejected the treasure that is in heaven and chose the treasure that is on earth" (Rosenheim 157). Aside from the already harsh preconceived prejudices against Jews, there were many historical and social events that preceded Shakespeare's writing of The Merchant of Venice, which could have caused even moreanti-Semitism in the minds of its viewers. In 1290, all Jews were expelled from England under the reign of Edward I, and were not readmitted until 1656 (Myers 33). Throughout the period in which the Jews were officially expelled from England, legends, folklore and ballads maintained a negative image of the Jew. Another way in which this image of the Jew was conveyed was through medieval mystery plays performed in churches and public squares at regular times throughout the year. In these plays, many of the villains were Jewish and were satirized with clown costumes, such as a bottle nose and scary red wig (Myers 34). But anti-Semitism reached its peak in the decade before the writing of The Merchant of Venice. Two events caused this wave of 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 evil, scheming, evil villain of the play. Of course, this play only fueled the anti-Semitism of the period, "The Jew of Malta became the biggest theatrical success up to that time, and fueled the anti-Jewish hysteria that drove the crowd to laugh so heartily at Lopez on the gallows" (Myers 34). The "Lopez" spoken of in this passage is Dr. Ruy Lopez, who was tried and executed on charges of attempting to poison Queen Elizabeth of England (Myers 32-33). This was the second event that caused an anti-Jewish riot in England. In Act IV, Scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice, Gratian says to Shylock: Thy ill-bred spirit ruled a wolf Who, hanged for human slaughter, His wicked soul also fled from the gallows, and... infused itself into thee. Most critics now believe this is a reference to Dr. Lopez's execution by hanging. Lopez's name was often spelled "Lopus", which can easily be interpreted as the Latin word meaning wolf (Myers 32). It is no exaggeration to assume that this allusion would have been clearly understood by Shakespeare's audience, bringing harsh reality and deeply ingrained prejudice into Shylock's character. Together, social preconceptions and the historical treatment of Jews prior to the first performance of The Merchant of Venice did much to influence audiences' reception of Shylock, and whether or not Shakespeare had intended to write a anti-Semitic work, it would certainly have been a success. received and understood in that light. From this point of reference, it is not difficult for us to assume that Shakespeare understood the social prejudices of his culture when he wrote The Merchant of Venice, knowing full well that this would create an anti-Jewish tone in his work, especially for ordinary people. But is it possible that there is a dueling purpose in this play? Stoking the audience's desire for the stereotypical, evil Jew would have made the show great entertainment for anyone simply looking for a good laugh. But what if Shakespeare had wanted those on the political and intellectual level to receive a deeper, more disturbing message from Merchant? This is my proposal. The setting of the show is in Venice for a very specific purpose, to provide an alternative social prototype. Venice was a city of trade and mercantilism, making it the richest city in Renaissance Europe. Being a city of traders, "Venice was full of foreigners: Turks, Jews, Arabs, Africans, and Christians of various nationalities and denominations" (Maus 1081). This diverse society made it the perfect location for Shakespeare's two ethnic plays, Othello and The Merchant ofVenice, "Venice thus provided Shakespeare with an example - perhaps the only example in sixteenth-century Europe - of a place where people with little in common culturally could coexist peacefully only because it was materially expedient to do so" (Maus 1083). It constituted a 'very believable setting for characters of exotic ethnicity, such as Shylock and Othello, considering that both Jews and Moors were exiled from England and most of Europe. These exotic characters not only attracted the curiosity of the audience, but the. The apparent "diabolicity" of these foreigners also brought an element of fear and heightened anticipation into the plays, as a modern "thriller" film would describe the Venetian scene, there was never the slightest implication that these foreigners were accepted by Christian society. Although Jews were admitted to Venice, they were not necessarily welcome, "there was the need for the Jew's services on the one hand, and 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 could not live in the same communities as Christians, which tended to marginalize 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 specific neighborhood called the geto Nuovo, from which the word "ghetto" originated (Picker 174). At a safe distance from Christian homes, Jewish heterodoxy was no longer a threat, but on the market loans from Jewish usurers were highly coveted by Christians: "Hence, the very conformation of Venice reproduced the paradoxical desire of Christians to desperately embrace had needed Jewish money and at the same time avoided the Jews who possessed it" (Picker 174). Having fully understood the basis on which Merchant was written, we can take a closer look at the work itself. In Merchant, we are first introduced to the shrewd and intelligent Shylock in his dialogue with Bassanio and Antonio when they approach him with the sole purpose of asking for a loan of three thousand ducats. Shylock: Three thousand ducats? Well. Bassanio: Yes, sir, for three months.Shylock: For three months? good.Bassanio: For which, as I told you, Antonio will be bound.Shylock: Antonio will be bound?good.Bassanio: Can you replace me? Will you please me? Do I need to 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 shows his resentment towards the treatment he previously received from Antonio and Bassanio by cleverly manipulating their dialogue. He uses repetition to both entice Bassanio and challenge Bassanio's attempts to impose limits on their communication, "Through pauses, repetition, and a final pun on the moral and economic connotations of 'good.'" Shylock...disturbs and challenges Bassanio remaining linguistically and economically unassailable" (Picker 175). Once Antonio enters the scene, subtle insubordination turns into outright defiance. Antonio enters having little desire to speak directly to Shylock, only wanting to use him for his money; asking Bassanio, “Is he still possessed / How much would you like?” (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 the supposed 'possession' of the Jew by the devil. This line is consistent with the Antonio's caustic remark about Shylock later in the book." scene, that 'the devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes' (95). Secondly, in his question, Antonio marginalizes Shylock by talking about him in third gradeperson despite his presence on the scene" (Picker 176). But Shylock refuses to be ignored and interrupts with the aim of having his presence acknowledged. After our introduction to the Jew, we are privileged to see his cunning at work , as he again manipulates the conversation to put himself in the foreground. Shylock does this through his speech about Jacob and Laban in verses 68-72 Shylock: When Jacob herded his uncle Laban's sheep was this Jacob of our holy Abraham? his wise mother had worked in his favor, the third possessor, yes, it was the third--In this passage, Shylock's mastery over conversation is once again demonstrated as he "subtly distorts this double meaning to remove the negative connotation from "possession" and aligning oneself with the patriarchs. Thus he ingeniously suggests that every patriarch we are not "possessed" by evil because of his Judaism, but, on the contrary, a "possessor" of the promise of God" (Picker 177). What are the immediate impressions we receive from Shylock in his first scene? He is stereotypically Jewish, through and through. His character doesn't change for an instant from being a greedy, cunning, proud Jew. What about Antonio and Bassanio? align 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, however, is not making Shylock necessarily good, but showing that Shakespeare was showing a very disturbing social evil to his more intellectual audience while keeping a simple plot for the common people by using Shylock, a pure Jew through and through, to show the ugliness of ours human nature. And this can be done best through a neutral character, he's not trying to make him intrinsically good or bad, he's simply exposing 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: A Jew has no eyes? Does a Jew not have hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, wounded with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and refreshed by the same winter and summer as a Christian? If you sting us, won't we bleed? If you tickle us, don't we laugh? If they poison us, don't we die? And if you wrong us, shouldn't we take revenge? If we are like you in everything else, we will be like you in this. If a Jew wrongs a Christian, what is his humility? Vendetta! If a Christian offends a Jew, what should be his suffering for the Christian example? Why revenge! The wickedness you teach me I will put into practice, and it will be hard but I will improve the instructions. Once again, the meaning of his words is practically stolen from him as Salerio and Solanio mock his passionate dialogue. This humiliating teasing serves two purposes. For the common people, it maintains Shylock's position in the play (and in their culture) as a Jewish clown, allowing their disgust for him to grow with every insult thrown by Salerio and Solanio. But for those looking for meaning, this scene introduces Shylock outside of his Jewish heritage, as a true member of the human race, "Shylock speaks not only of the Jewish experience, but of the human experience. In doing so, he compares Salerio and Solanio with what, to them, must seem like a frightening prospect: that, despite his religious and cultural identity, he shares a fundamental humanity with them" (Picker 179). Immediately following this call for equality, Shylock's intimate conversation with Tubal helps to humanize him, 1997. 1090-1145.