The Tragedy of Shylock in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice

Introduction

All these images portray Shylock as villainous, indeed murderous, emphasising his vengeful determination to carve out his pound of flesh from the 'innocent' Venetian nobleman Antonio. In this play, there is ample evidence for the negative stereotype of the Jew, rapacious, money grabbing, and villainous, stridently, obstinately. irrationally, demanding his pound of flesh.

Anti-semitism in England is nothing new. The persecution and massacre of Jews was first recorded in the late twelfth century in Northampton, London and York around the time of the Christian Crusades to recover the Holy Land and Jerusalem in particular. In 1269, Henry 2nd made blasphemy by Jews a hanging offence. On his return from the Crusades, Edward 1st himself showed increasing antisemitism, and in 1290, all known Jews were expelled, and would not be officially admitted until the mid seventeenth century. It would seem that antisemitism started very quickly in England, very shortly after their first recorded arrival in the reign of William the Conqueror in the eleventh century. Mundill (2010) describes how Jews were at the same time subjected to antisemitic abuse, commonly taking the form of scare stories, rumours circulating across the land: the ‘fake news’ of ‘blood libel’. This held that Jews abducted and murdered innocent Christian children, to be used in Jewish sacrificial rituals. Many generations were fed on this diet of ‘blood libel’.

Anti-Jewish feeling was also fuelled by the Crusades whose purpose was to restore the Holy Land to its ‘rightful' Christian ownership. In England, Jews began to be regarded as ‘Christ-killers’, which led to a series of incidents of mob violence. As an example, in 1190, all 150 of the Jewish community in York were massacred, who had gathered at the foot of Clifford’s Tower, in an attempt to protect themselves.

Jews were first invited to settle in England by William the Conqueror in the eleventh century, and soon became an essential part of the English economy. They received authorisation from the King to loan money at an interest, something which had been forbidden for Christians by the Pope. In England, Jews were at this point under the protection of the Crown and, where the King was willing, enjoyed a special privilege. They had their own courts, and had separate legal status. Jewish money lenders became an essential cog in the capital projects of the monarchs of mediaeval England, such the building of castles, churches, and cathedrals. Then in later centuries, the English monarchy attempted its expansionist forays into into French territories. The Crusades into the Holy Land needed financing.

However, anti-Jewish sentiment came to a head in the reign of Edward 1st. In 1275 he decreed that Jews could no longer loan money for a living. In exchange for sanctioning an Edict of Expulsion of the 3000 or so Jews living in the country, Parliament agreed to a one-off financial payment to cover the King’s debts.

Evidence of anti-Jewish prejudice can be found in surprising places. When Chaucer published the Canterbury Tales in around 1400, the Prioress’s Tale repeated the slanderous scare story of the Jews abducting and murdering innocent Christian children in gory detail. It is something of a shock to see buried in the heart of the text of one of the early and most loved classics of English literature, the father of English poetry, what amounts to a vicious antisemitic tract:

“There was in Asia in a great city, amongst Christian folk, a Jewish ghetto, sustained by a lord of that country, for the purpose of foul usury and villainous profit, which is hateful to Christ and his followers.” The story then relates how a devoted Christian seven-year-old widow’s son, was walking one day through the Jewish Ghetto: “and from thence forth the Jews began to conspire to chase that innocent from this world ...to this end a murderer they hired, and as the child passed, this accursed Jew seized him, and held him fast, and cut his throat and cast him into a cesspit.” Inevitably the Jews involved in this deadly deed met a gruesome end:” With torture and with shameful death each one, this Magistrate condemned the Jews to die, and that at once. He would no such wickedness allow. Evil shall have that which evil does deserve. Therefore, with wild horses did he have them torn apart, and after that he did hang them, as the law prescribes.”

Rebecca Adams in her book Power and Prejudice in Mediaeval England (2022) makes the point that though money lending was an important source of income for many Jews in mediaeval England, only a small minority were money lenders on a major scale. Most were eking out a living making small loans to their friends and neighbours. Very few had made a fortune out of it, and could be described as rich. One who had succeeded was Licoricia of WInchester (see Rebecca Adam's Licoricia of Winchester, Power and Prejudice in Mediaeval England (2022). Licoricia had indeed become seriously wealthy, and had a clientele not only in England but across Europe. But for all her wealth, Licoricia suffered from the endemic antisemitism of her era. Her first husband was accused falsely of murder, and one of her sons was accused of coin-clipping and executed. In 1266, many of her family were attacked in Winchester where she lived. Like Shylock, she fell foul of English law, made to pay massive fines imposed the bonds she was forced to take out, which were then forfeited to the Crown. She was imprisoned at least three times in the Tower of London, and in 1277 was stabbed to death in her own home.

A few centuries later, by Shakespeare's time, Jews seem to have unofficially returned back in England, prompted perhaps by the expulsion of Jews from Spain and Portugal in the late 15th Century. Also, in the course of the reign of Henry 8th, in the mid 1500's, Hebrew was first allowed to be printed, and in 1549 the use of Hebrew in private worship was permitted, perhaps indicating a regal moderating influence. It is not entirely clear why this happened, but it did. Paradoxically, Henry seems to have been both an enlightened monarch, as well as at the same time being increasingly tyrannical as his reign wore on, and his need for a male heir became increasingly desperate. By Henry's edict Jews were allowed the freedom to worship, in private, and books in Hebrew were published for the first time. It is possible that as the news of these developments spread across Europe, England began to be seen by Jews as a relatively attractive place to seek refuge from other counties in Europe which were actively more hostile.

However, this was always a fraught situation, which could turn nasty very quickly. For example, the physician to Queen Elizabeth 1st was a Jewish doctor called Roderigo Lopez. Rumours had spread however, that he was allegedly bribed by the Spanish Monarchy to poison the Queen. These malicious rumours led to his arrest and execution. When he spoke to the crowd at the scaffold he was reported as saying that he ‘loved the Queen as much as he loved Jesus Christ.’ Execution in those days was a public event, leading to the victim being hung, drawn, and quartered. There are accounts of the large jubilant crowd, shouting:” Hang the Jew”.  Such an event would have echoed throughout London society, and certainly Shakespeare would have heard of it.

James Shapiro in his Shakespeare and the Jews (1997) comments that “generations of Elizabethan children were exposed to stories of how Jews abducted, mangled and cannibalized Christian children. We have the familiar categories of the Jew as murderer, poisoner, usurer, and political interloper. There is also a strong emphasis on the Jew’s capacity to counterfeit endlessly,or coin-clipping.”

Shapiro informs us there were no more than a handful of Jews living unofficially in England, all by definition in a precarious situation. The pattern towards Jews at that time could perhaps be characterized by periods of liberal tolerance and a hardening of antisemitic attitudes and oppressive, punitive measures.

Christopher Marlowe in his The Jew of Malta published in 1559/60 painted a lurid and hostile antisemitic portrait, of Barabas, the Jew who first appears counting out his money and is finally betrayed and burnt at the stake. Marlowe has Barabas uttering blood-curdling threats: “I walk abroad o’nights, and kill sick people groaning under walls; Sometimes I go about and poison wells; And now and then, to cherish Christian thieves, I am content to lose some of my crowns, That I may, walking in my gallery, see ‘em go pinioned along by my door. “

By the time Shakespeare came to write the Merchant of Venice in around 1598, it was in the context of a deeply problematic and persecutory stance towards Jews, very few of whom were actually rich. It should not be a surprise if Shakespeare inherited these attitudes, and that it should be reflected in how Shylock is portrayed in the play.

The Merchant of Venice as a published manuscript

The 1600 Quarto edition of the play, entered into the Stationer’s Register (22nd July, 1598), described it as ‘A booke of the Merchaunte of Venyse, otherwise called the Jewe of Venyse. The Folio published in Quarto featured on the title page: ”The excellent historie of the Merchaunte of Venyse. With the extreme cruelty of Shylocke the Jewe towards the said merchaunte, in cutting a iuste pounde of his fleshe. And the Obtaining of Portia by the choyce of the Three Caskets. “

To describe the play as a ‘historie’ in the first Folio of 1600 is revealing, perhaps because it could not easily be categorised as a tragedy or a comedy at that point. Also, it highlights the ‘extreme cruelty’ of Shylock the Jew in threatening to cut out a pound of flesh from the (Christian) Merchant Antonio. Finally, it refers to Portia being ‘obtained’ through the choice of the three caskets, showing her own powerlessness in a world dominated by men. The ‘story line’ of the first Quarto therefore highlights the ‘extreme violence’ of the Jew Shylock, and the main female character Portia being ‘obtained’. The fifth act of the play ties up some loose ends, engages in the Shakespearian comedic tradition of ‘the happy ever after ceremony of young lovers joyfully wooing and a final joyful wedding. There is the somewhat perfunctory bonding between Portia and Bassanio, Jessica and Lorenzo. It also allows itself a ‘happily ever after’ ending in which Antonio’s ships, having apparently been lost at sea, come home. These are thematic elements of Shakespearian Comedy. Perhaps because it was difficult to position the play in one category or another, it does not feature in the First Folio published in 1623, but was printed as a Quarto in 1600. Neville Grant (2023) in his Shakespeare in an age of Anxiety states that its first listing in 1598/99 it was describes as a 'comedie', of which there is very little evidence in the text. Perhaps the unconvincing attempt in the fifth act to conclude in a conventional celebration led to the assumption that it was a comedy, when it really wasn't. There is little doubt that much of the text is antisemitic.

If The Merchant of Venice is not a comedy, what kind of play is it?

Two recent performances of the play have left me convinced that this play belongs in the Shakespearean cannon as a tragedy. This has been the case of the two performances of the Merchant of Venice, which I have recently witnessed. The first was at the Sam Wanamaker Theatre in the Autumn of 2022, directed by Annabel Graham. The second was at the Criterion Theatre in March 2024. This was a production given the subtitle of 1936, co-produced and featuring Tracy-Ann Oberman as a female Shylock. This production has the subtext 1936, putting it in the immediate historical context of the rise of Oswald Mosely's proto-Nazi fascism in England, and three years before the Nazi onslaught in Europe in 1939. These two recent productions of the play have led me at least to conclude that The Merchant of Venice, far from being a comedy, is a deep, unique and affecting tragedy, just as much as Othello or Macbeth.

As for me, I have felt speechless, deeply affected by grief and tears, in two recent performances of the Merchant of Venice. I felt a sense of enormous compassion and loss for Shylock, almost in a state of bereavement.  In the first production, Shylock was male, and in the second, female. From here on in, I shall use s/he. A tragedy had befallen Shylock. I was in a mysterious almost spiritual way, at one, in a state of shock and loss. Shylock's loss had become my loss, s/his tragedy my tragedy.

At a deeper level, it has also led me to ponder what is the essence of a tragedy, and where are its roots?

The 2022 production in the Sam Wanamaker theatre directed by Abigail Graham starts with a fusilade of antisemitic jibes, all derived from the text, launched at Shylock by the gang of noblemen in Venice led by the deeply antisemitic Antonio, for whom he was acting as money lender. This was a role that seemed both necessary but also resented.

Antonio and his sidekicks are all presented as financial profligates. They were both needful of the services of the Jew Shylock and resentful of Shylock for providing the needed financial support. Why should a Jew be rich, and profit from their own feckless penury? The play movingly ends with an authentic and stirring protest against the battle of Cable Street, which took place on Sunday October 4th 1936. This was a series of clashes in that area of London, led by Oswald Mosely who was attempting to bring Nazism to the heart of the British Empire in London. His deliberately provocative march was designed to pass through the East End of London, where many Jews resided, and came to a head in Cable St. The march was opposed by various anti-fascist groups drawn from Jewish protest groups, trade unionists, and communists. Moseley's march was protected by the police, who were deployed against those opposing it.

The Roots of Tragedy

The first question to answer it seems to me is where did Tragedy first arise, and why?

This is a huge question, one which has led to learned scholars spending their entire careers trying to explore. All I can do is to reference the relevant texts, and to simply say that the first evidence comes from Greece in the fourth century BC, primarily in the city state of Athens. According to Aristotle who was the first to articulate the nature of tragedy, it seems to have evolved from the satyr dithyramb, an ancient hymn and ritual which was sung with dancing in honour to Dionysus. In his Poetics he thought of it as having several components. In terms of its impact upon those who witness it, he put forward the influential notion of Katharsis.

The first known tragedies are through the work of Sophocles, Aeschylus, and  Euripedes. Both Sophocles, and Aeschylus actually fought in battles, defending Athens against the Persian invasion of Greece, both the land battle of Marathon, and the sea battle of Salamis. Aeschylus wrote a play based on his experience of this in The Persians.

Katharsis: The personal impact of tragedy

All good theatre, and in particular productions of tragedy, whether Shakespearean or more modern such as Ibsen, or more ancient such as in Aeschylus, Sophocles or Euripides, have a profound effect upon the audience. Of course the issue of who the audience actually is has varied throughout the centuries. Nowadays I suppose it is the affluent middle aged middle classes. In Aristotle's time in fourth century Athens, it was the citizens of Athens.

Shylock as a Tragic Aristotelian Figure

I want to explore whether the experience of Shylock in the play could be seen in the terms Aristotle used in the Poetics, and if so, is there any added benefit in doing so? The terms Aristotle used to define tragedy start with 'Katharsis', which he explains as “an imitation in the form of action, not of narrative, effecting through pity and fear the proper Katharsis or purgation of such emotions.”

In terms of who might be a tragic hero, Aristotle states (chapter 7) “he should neither be a villain or a hero but: “the person intermediate between these… This is the sort of person who is not outstanding in moral excellence or justice: on the other hand, the change to bad fortune he undergoes is not due to any moral defect or depravity, but to an error of some kind….he is one of those people who are held in great esteem and enjoy great good fortune….and that it must involve a change not to good fortune from bad fortune, but on the contrary from good fortune to bad fortune, and that this must be due not to depravity but to a serious error..” It is certainly the case that my own reaction to Shylock's fate and tragic downfall has been shock, awe and loss, that such a fate could have befallen s/him. In this sense I certainly experienced what Aristotle called Katharsis. My immediate, spontaneous reaction to Abigail Graham’s production and Tracy-Ann Oberman's at the Criterion theatre is that The Merchant of Venice is a tragedy not a comedy as it has often been portrayed, the tragedy of Shylock.

Aristotle identified three phases or processes, in the tragic journey of the hero/victim: Hamartia, Anagnorisis, and Peripeteia.  I have tried to describe how the experience of Shylock could be described using these terms.

In chapter 13 he describes Hamartia as “a tragic flaw which leads ultimately to his downfall”. In his book Aristotle and the Arc of Tragedy (2017) Leon Golden comments:

“For at least 500 years hamartia was understood as a moral error, and gradually became crystalised as “the tragic flaw” of a character. The hero in a tragedy suffers disaster because of hamartia. However, elsewhere in the Poetics, Golden explains that Aristotle uses this term to mean a miscalculation or a failure of judgement.”

Peripeteia Aristotle thought of as: “A change by which the action veers round to its opposite, subject always to our rule of probability or necessity.” Anagnorisis, he thought of as “a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined by the poet for good or bad fortune.”

As I have come to understand it, the hero’s tragic flaw or error of judgement (Hamartia) leads to a catastrophic outcome, of which the hero/ine becomes aware (Anagnorisis). At some point the hero/ine recognises what has or is about to occur. (Anagnorisis)and his/her downfall (Peripeteia). Aristotle also distinguishes between ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ tragedies.  

Hamartia: Shylock as tragic hero/heroine

In terms of Shylock’s character, Shakespeare presents us with a figure of considerable complexity, in a complex plot. Shylock is not remotely like the regal figures such as Oedipus or Antigone in Greek tragedy. Neither does s/he have royal heritage such as Hamlet or MacBeth in Shakespearian tragedy. Perhaps, he most closely resembles Othello, in that he has an obvious point of difference. In Othello’s case it is his skin colour, in Shylock’s, his racial background as a Jew. However, Othello is a war leader of enormous distinction, to whom the state is beholden. Shylock is a money lender, who is performing his role in Venetian society, or in 1930's London, a role shrouded by scorn and anti- semitic spite. He is not in a good, high-status position in either society, nor is he enjoying good fortune when the play begins.

As both these productions make clear, he/she is a person with a tenuous position in society, with a complex, ambivalent and ambiguous relationship to his/her protagonists, whether that be Venice, or the east end of London in immediately pre-war London. S/he is viewed as possessing enormous personal wealth, which s/he is prepared to lend out, subject to terms and conditions, and the charging of interest, to those of Venetian/London society such as Bassanio, who are in need of a loan.

Antonio, Bassanio and Lorenzo

To put no finer point on it, Bassanio is a wastrel, frittering away his money which in any case he acquires from the deeply antisemitic Antonio, who is engaged in early capitalist risk taking, capitalising on three ships which when safely returned, will add enormously to his wealth. Bassanio is antisemitic too, profligate, having frittered his money away. It is to Antonio he turns for a further loan, which he needs to seek the hand of the wealthy heiress Portia. Speculation to accumulate is at the heart of his ambition in marrying Portia, just as much as Antonio. They are both Venture Capitalists! It is somewhat puzzling that the two fall in love, but the plot requires it, and It would not be the first time in human history that an oddly matched couple fall in love!

Shylock

Meanwhile, Shylock is him/herself in a tenuous, dangerous and ambiguous position. S/he is subject to vituperative antisemitic abuse from all members of the society for whom he is serving an essential but resented function. There is plentiful material in the text to show Shylock being subjected to a tyranny of antisemitic abuse.

In Aristotelian terms, Shylock is a complex character, both with his own daughter and with his clientele. Shylock certainly meets the Aristotle's criteria of an individual beset with difficulties some of his own making and some of the situation he is in. His personal circumstances are fraught. He has a fractious relationship with his daughter Jessica. He is also he is also full of rage and resentment at the antisemitic attacks he, and historically his race, have been subjected to. Shylock is not presented as an iconic hero figure, a king or queen of heroic lineage. Neither does he commit acts of murder, as Othello or Macbeth do. He is presented as a flawed man, full of contradictions and ambivalence, trying to carry out his needed but resented role as a moneylender in the adverse, persecutory, antisemitic context of Venetian society, or pre-war London in 1936. By locating the historical context 1936, to the East End of London, the play is situated just three years before the Second World War and the onslaught of Nazi fascism across Europe.

This is immediately apparent in Act One, when Shylock is approached for a loan by Bassanio. Shylock’s reply is: “How like a fawning publican he looks! I hate him (Antonio) because he is a Christian... He hates our sacred nation, and he rails. even there where merchants most do congregate. On me, my bargains and my well-won thrift, which he calls ‘interest’. Cursed be my tribe if I forgive him!” (Act 1, s 3).

In accepting the bond Antonio is prepared to offer, Shylock’s motives seem to be a combination of the possibility of financial gain, and vengeance: “Three thousand ducats for three months, and Antonio bound…Antonio is a good man…. My meaning in saying that Antonio is a good man is to have you understand me that he is sufficient.” Antonio is a good bet, worth the moneylending risk. 

Mutual hatred and resentment are thus marked out as the driver of their relationship. These feelings are so intense that they lead Shylock into a fatal misjudgement: linking his bond to his demand for a pound of Antonio’s flesh.

Hamartia

This leads to the critical Hamartia moment to say: “Go with me to a notary, seal me there Your single bond, and in a merry sport, if you repay me not on such a day, …let the forfeit be nominated for an equal pound of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken in what part of your body pleaseth me.”

Shakespeare makes clear that Shylock has a deep sense of his identity as a Jew, and his Jewish ancestry.  Early on in his first meeting with Antonio, the issue of the ‘nefarious’ Jewish practice (from Antonio’s point of view) of charging interest for a loan is raised. Shylock defends this by referencing to the story in the Old Testament book of Exodus and the success of Jacob in breeding parti-coloured lambs, and so gaining a very substantial return on his investment.

To Antonio, this highlights the alien nature of Shylock’s false beliefs: his Jewish ‘otherness’, and ultimately the falsity of the Jewish faith. In an aside to Bassanio, Antonio scornfully dismisses both Shylock and Judaism: “The devil can site Scripture for his purpose! An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, a goodly apple rotten at the heart. O what a goodly outside falsehood hath!” 

Antonio is also showing by contrast, his Christian superiority by comparing the ‘false beliefs’ of a Jew, to the ‘true beliefs’ of a Christian, who is also a prominent member of the ruling class.

Anagnorisis: Shylock's tragic flaw

His precarious situation takes a disastrous turn for the worse, through losing the trial he himself brought to court. For totally understandable reasons, his/her stubborn insistence on bringing his 'case' to court is a calamitous error of judgement, leading inevitably to his downfall. Shylock is so possessed by rage and resentment that he is beside himself and almost wilfully abandons his own best wise judgement. He doesn’t care whether he wins or loses. All that matters is vengeance. His motive is to strike out at Antonio, any way he can, using the power and prestige of the Venetian courts to do so. The rashness, flaws and inconsistences of his demand is later in the play in Act 4 scene 1 laid bare by Portia, in the male disguise of the lawyer Balthazar. Portia with ruthless and eloquent brilliance, destroys Shylock’s case, which he insists in bringing.

In Shylock, it seems to me that Shakespeare created a character whose tragic flaw was actually a catastrophic error of judgment. It was his demand for Antonio’s pound of flesh, which he pursued with utter determination and beyond all reason. When in Act 4 scene 3 Antonio addresses Shylock, it is with the assumption that Shylock cannot possibly mean what he has demanded: “Shylock, the world thinks, and I think so too, That thou but leadest this fashion of thy malice To the last hour of act and then ‘tis thought, Thoul’t show thy mercy and remorse more strange Than is thy strange apparent cruelty...we all expect a gentle answer, Jew”.

Shylock replies: “I have possessed your Grace of what I purpose, And by our holy Sabbath have I sworn To have the due and forfeit of my bond. If you deny it, let the danger light upon your charter and your city’s freedom. You’ll ask me why I rather have A weight of carrion flesh than to receive three thousand ducats? I’ll not answer that But say it is my humour. Is it answered? What if my house be troubled with a rat And I be pleased to give ten thousand ducats To have it baned? What, are you answered yet? So can I give no reason, nor will I not, More than a lodged hate and a certain loathing that I bear Antonio, that I follow thus, a losing suit against him. Are you answered?” (Act 4 s3).

Anagnorisis

Shylock through a combination of vicious external persecution and his own baleful rage and resentment, experiences his moment of Anagnorisis This is not in my view, a tragic flaw, but more that he makes a fateful and disastrous error of judgement in demanding his ‘pound of flesh’, which leads to his downfall.'

Peripeteia: Shylock’s downfall: Portia as the instrument

Portia in this and in many similar images is presented as white, beautiful and pure - who nevertheless succeeds in running rings round Shylock in portraying the superiority of Christian virtues to primitive Jewish values of 'an eye for an eye. It is also clear that she is herself imbued with antisemitic spite just as much as Antonio, or Bassanio.

In one of the most famous speeches in the whole of Shakespeare, Portia/Balthazar makes the case for the pre-eminently Christian virtue of mercy “The quality of Mercy is not strained…. etc” It is a wonderful poetic and luminous speech, Shakespeare at his best and most poetic. However, it also highlights the ‘superior’ New Testament values of love, charity, forgiveness etc, over the Old Testament values of adherence to the Hebraic law of Moses, Abraham, Isiah and the other Old Testament prophets. H/She is defeated in the court of Venetian law by a Portia who is located in the highest echelons of Venetian or London society: a rich, privileged and educated heiress, or perhaps the cossetted recipient of the classic public school Oxbridge bandwagon?

However, her own antisemitism is crushingly evident. The Jew in this venal and corrupt Venetian society is treated with scorn and disdain, which must have reflected these attitudes and values in Shakespeare’s Elizabethan England, and continued to be displayed in pre-war London.

Jessica as an ambiguous, complex character

In this image of Jessica she is shown as beautiful, clutching the casket containing her own father's wealth she has stolen from him, and which she hopes to give to her penniless lover Lorenzo. Under this provocation of his own daughter Jessica running off, sacrificing her Jewish identity, and stealing money and jewellery from her father, to marry the converted Christian Lorenzo, Shylock blindly insists on his day in court.

Aristotelian Peripeteia

By the end of the play, Shylock undergoes a fateful and catastrophic reversal of fortune. He loses in court, and in so doing, loses everything. He had been abandoned by his daughter for a penniless Lorenzo, whose ancestors were Jewish but has for expedient reasons, converted to Christianity. In court he loses his reputation, his ethnic and cultural identity as a Jew, and all his wealth. He was left no alternative but to convert to a Christianity he hated and despised. After the trial scene in Act 4, he simply disappears. Culturally, he has been assassinated, just as many Jews before and since have been.

In Act 4, scene 1, Shylock recognises that he is about to lose everything. Yet he realises, through his Eureka moment, the bitter irony that he shares a common humanity with his oppressors: “he (Antonio) hath disgraced me and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation…and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, …? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? “

In a final brief, but bitter speech, he realises that he is doomed, that his life is over, and he will be left with nothing: “Nay, take my life, and all. Pardon not that. You take my house when you do take the prop That doth sustain my  house; you take my life when you do take the means whereby I live.”

Conclusions

With respect to the Merchant of Venice, there is plenty of antisemitic language in the play itself. Possibly he assimilated the antisemitic tropes of the time, but being Shakespeare, he added it to the creative fire and imagination of a great dramatist, and gave voice to Shylock haunting words which evoke his own vulnerability and humanity.

The terrible irony is that the tragic recent events of October 7th 2023, in Israel itself shows that any situation can lead to terrorism, and that the State of Israel, and the Israeli army can itself commit what many consider war crimes and acts of enormous destructiveness against Palestinian families caught in the crossfire of this horrendous tragedy in which both sides are committing atrocities against the other.

My personal conclusion is that what Shakespeare actually wrote in the Merchant of Venice is one of his most haunting tragedies. It is the tragedy of the Shylock the Jew, broken by the antisemitic forces within Venetian/London society, and his own catastrophic and miscalculated reaction to them, leading to his his doomed, impulsive and irrational making the bond of the pound of flesh. Shylock lives on in our memories and imagination precisely because he/she inspires in us that sense of Aristotelian pity and awe which his tragic fate evokes.

References:

Abrams R (2022) Licoricia of Winchester: Power and Prejudice in Mediaeval England

Aristotle Poetics (circa 340 BC)

Belfiore E (1992) Tragic Pleasures: Aristotle on Plot and Emotion

Chaucer G (circa 1387 -1400) The Prioress’s Tale from The Canterbury Tales

Golden L (2017) Aristotle and the Arc of Tragedy

Grant N (2023) in his Shakespeare in an age of Anxiety

Mundill R (2010) The King’s Jews: Money, Massacre and Exodus in Mediaeval England

Shakespeare W (circa 1596-8) The Merchant of Venice

Shapiro J (2010) Shakespeare and the Jews 2nd edition