The Merchant of Venice: Shylock

The Merchant of Venice is a difficult play with which modern audiences find it difficult to sympathize and interpret since a major part of the storyline seems to indicate, at the very least, the popularity of a somewhat anti-Semitic mentality in Shakespeare's day. This has generally brought about two different interpretations of The Merchant of Venice; first, Shakespeare and his audiences lived in a time period where a combination of a lack of knowledge and education and a lot of ignorance created a slightly racist and anti-Semitist population-this play is merely a product of that; second, there really is something deeper in this play that Shakespeare explores, and, even if the population in Shakespeare's day was ignorant and racist, Shakespeare wanted people to wonder at Shylock's treatment in the face of these "Christians" (or perhaps more accurately, Venetians). There appear to be some interpretations that are a sort of combination of these two views, but, for me at least, they seem a bit self-conflicting and confusing. The essay on The Merchant of Venice by George Brandes does seem to follow this pattern of confusion, but Harley Granville-Barker and Sigurd Burckhardt's respective essays on the play are refreshingly clear and take much more concrete stances on this play.

Harley Granville-Barker first interprets the play as being "fabulous." He explains that Shakespeare has made the characters very real, but the story remains fabulous. An example of one of the main (fabulous) fairytale elements that contributes to this is the story of the three chests and Portia-this is clearly not overly realistic. In fact, he tells us that Shakespeare seems to have taken this fabulous story from previous sources and adapted it. The reason that Shakespeare's story, as opposed to the other, previous works, has lasted as a great work of literature is probably due to the reality that Shakespeare has created in the characters. Because Harvey focuses strictly on characters in his interpretation, he eventually resorts to attributing less of an important part to Shylock than he might deserve (the play is, after all, The Merchant of Venice: this may refer to Antonio, but that is unlikely as Bassanio carries an equally important part as the technical "hero" of this comedy, and Antonio's wealth is literally not in Venice). It is very obvious that this play is about Shylock, yet Harvey, in analyzing Shylock, does not delve too deeply into whether Shylock is righteous in his thirst for revenge or not. Instead, he treats Shylock as a mere vehicle to move the story about Bassanio and Portia. The proof of this is in Harvey's treatment of the ending of the play, which he has aptly named "The Return to Comedy;" with Shylock "safely out of the way," everyone else is married and lives "happily ever after." Though it is obviously impossible for us to determine what Shakespeare's audiences were thinking at this point in the play roughly 400 years ago, it is plainly difficult for modern audiences to simply let go of the events of the trial and move on to a comedic ending. Suppose that theatergoers in Shakespeare's day did have the same problem. In that event (however likely or unlikely), Shylock simply cannot be seen as an inhuman force that Shakespeare uses to bring the audience to a comfortable and comedic ending (actually, it would be and is more of an uncomfortable ending in that case).

Sigurd Burckhardt treats in a much better manner the problem that "audiences persist in feeling distressed by Shylock's final treatment, and no amount of historical explanation helps them over their unease." He even goes on to say that "they have been made to take Shylock's part so strongly that his end seems cruel." Sigurd treats this problem well because he explains that the root of the audience's "unease is simple enough: Shylock gets more than his share of good lines." An important part of his defense of this position is his examination of Shylock's speeches in comparison to Antonio's speeches. According to Sigurd, Shylock is a much more powerful and clear speaker than Antonio (indeed, one can plainly see this in a side-by-side comparison of their speeches). This ability to communicate that is developed and shown early on in the play does, perhaps, two important things; first, audiences connect with Shylock's character more, and Shakespeare was probably aware of this; second, it builds credibility for later on in the play and shows that Shylock is not just a vengeful animal. The realization that his vengeful feelings are normal human behavior ("Christians" like Antonio have them also) is important, and Shylock touches on this later on in the play when he says, "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." A combination of these factors seems to be the most likely cause of these feelings that audiences often have, and it is very realistic to believe that Shakespeare's audiences in his day felt at least a little bit the same as us towards Shylock.

George Brandes takes a similar position to Sigurd in analyzing the problem of Shylock. The first thing that Brandes points out is that Shakespeare's audiences were already very familiar with the basic story of the Jew. This shows that Shakespeare must have done something innovative and new for this play to have reached such lasting success. Perhaps this innovation is in Shakespeare's treatment of the Jew, Shylock. Brandes is more than happy to point out that Antonio is far from faultless. In (basically) begging for the loan, Antonio tells Shylock to "lend it rather to thine enemy, who, if he break, thou mayest with better face exact the penalty." This is immediately after Antonio explains his willingness "to spit on thee again, to spurn thee too." While this alone seems to be enough to incriminate Antonio, later on in the trial he exhibits perfectly his hypocrisy in expressing the futility of pleading with Shylock's "Jewish heart." It remains difficult for some to blame Shylock at this point for wanting to exact his revenge on Antonio. In all this, Brandes shows that, because Antonio treated Shylock so horribly, it is almost impossible that Shakespeare shared Antonio's attitude.

This rift that splits the interpretations of this play is pretty evident, especially with George Brandes' and Sigurd Burckhardt's essays. This does not seem too strange, either, since Shakespeare makes his characters in this play obvious in their motivations. One of the things that appear to aid this is the existence of two different worlds in the play. There is Venice, which represents the pure law; this is where Shylock resides, the loan is made, and the trial takes place. Then there is Belmont, where love and "forgiveness" reign free; this is Portia's home field. All three of these writers agree on this importance of this separation. The law is what ultimately leads Shylock to refuse everything at the trial except for what is rightfully his "by the law." The love in Belmont is what allows Bassanio to get close to Portia; without this relationship, Portia would never have ended up coming to the trial. All of this eventually leads the audience to wonder if Shylock is just an animal following his animal impulses for revenge or if Shylock is a normal human (like Antonio) who has just as much "right" to such emotions. Are we to think that, unlike the exhibition of more modern, sympathetic views of good and evil found in Shakespeare's other plays, Shakespeare abandoned his reason in writing this play and senselessly portrayed an anti-Jewish message with an inhuman Shylock? I think not.

Sources:
George Brandes, and his essay on The Merchant of Venice
Harley Granville-Barker, and his essay on The Merchant of Venice
Sigurd Burckhardt, and his essay on The Merchant of Venice