The Merchant of Venice vs.

Silas Marner

Money Theme

by

Asiel Valencia

A term paper in English Course

prepared for Professor C. Allin

Carachipampa Christian School

21/05/2010
 ‘The love of money is a destructive force’ is a very common theme in Literature.

The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare and Silas Marner by George Elliot are

no exception, for they both have a common theme of greed for money and the influence

that love has on the characters. The Merchant of Venice is a story of how a Jewish man

named Shylock lost everything, ironically because of money. Silas Marner is a story of

a weaver, named Silas, who lost both God and his precious money, but in the ends

gained everything. Both of these main characters had to deal with the consequences of

their love of money and how it impacted their lives. In the books The Merchant of

Venice and Silas Marner, money is portrayed as a destructive force that interferes with

one’s lifestyle, ruins relationships, and determines the eventual outcome of the

characters that possess it. These three points will be compared and contrasted in the

following essay.

First, the destructive power of money is evident in both Silas and Shylock’s

lifestyles. Silas used to be a devout, religious man that was respected by everyone and

was engaged to a servant woman named Sarah. (Eliot, 8-9) After he was convicted and

found guilty of theft by the church elders, he was excommunicated from his church. His

engagement was cancelled by Sarah and he left Lantern Yard with anger in his heart.

(Eliot, 11-12) In his new town, Raveloe, he developed an unusual habit which consisted

of taking out his money every night and counting it. (Eliot, 21) This habit had started

when he earned his first payment of five guineas. (Eliot, 16) In his life back at Lantern

Yard, he had always earned money to give it to church, and what was left of it to buy

provisions or hang out with the church brothers. (Eliot, 16) Now, he had none of that.

He had no church, nothing he desired, and he did not hang out with any of the people in

Raveloe, which made him live as a hermit, (Eliot, 4) so he did not have to spend his

money by going out with them. The only other option that was feasible for him was to
hoard it, count it, and admire it every single night. He does hoard it and it “kills his

spirit–until fate steals it from him and replaces it with a golden-haired foundling.”

(Bantam)

There is not too much information given on Shylock’s past, but what we do know

is that he was thought of as a low selfish being. “He is likened to a dog, a wolf, and

even Satan” (Watts) Most of the opinions the characters had about Shylock were that he

was a “devil and a “villain”. Bassanio said he liked “not fair terms and a villain’s mind”

when he was negotiating with Shylock about the loan he was making. (Shakespeare, 46)

Lancelet, Shylock’s servant, said that “certainly, the Jew is the very devil incarnation”

when he was planning on running away from his master for being mistreated.

(Shakespeare, 49) Solanio, Antonio and Bassanio’s friend, also said Shylock was a

villain and a devil. (Shakespeare, 62, 67) Even Jessica, Shylock’s daughter said “what a

heinous sin…to be ashamed to be my father’s child!” and that her “house is hell.”

(Shakespeare, 54) Since Shylock was a Jewish moneylender, he could charge interest,

unlike the Christians. This is what made Shylock greedy for money, he could make

money the way no one else could. He had a huge ego, which is why he wanted revenge

on Antonio and Bassanio for humiliating him. In Shylock’s religion, “eye for eye, tooth

for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for

bruise,” (Exodus 21:24) were the laws, so Shylock justified his revenge with these.

The similarities in the lifestyles of the characters in these two books are that they

were both money lovers, whose life revolved around money. Silas had lost his trust in

man and thought money was the only thing that would not leave him, and Shylock did

not trust anybody either and was only content with his money. Silas’s lifestyle had

become a very solitary one, to the extent where he scared away the children that were

curious about him so he would be left alone. Shylock’s lifestyle was not as solitary as
Silas’s, but he did not really hang out with other people, other than to collect the money

he lent plus the interest it had gained. Another similarity between Silas and Shylock is

that they were both religious. Shylock was a Jew, which caused him to hate all

Christians and want revenge and Silas was probably a catholic, which is why he fully

depended on God to clear him of the theft charges against him. These men learned that

money does not go too well with religion. Shylock’s religion caused him to earn the

hate of the Christians and Silas’s religion caused him to leave Lantern Yard in search of

a new life.

Silas and Shylock have difference in their lifestyle too. Both of these gentlemen

lived with their daughters. It was part of their lifestyle to be parents, but one did a good

job and the other was just terrible at it. Silas was an excellent, caring father to Eppie, his

adopted daughter. Shylock, on the other hand, seemed to not pay as much attention to

his daughter as he did to his money and did not really have her best interest in mind.

Another difference is how they made money. Silas earned his money from all the hard

work he put into weaving fabric and selling what he had made. Shylock, on the other

side, did not have to work hard to make money. All he did was loan money to those

who needed it and made a profit out of it. Another small, minor difference is that Silas

Marner only collected and hoarded gold guineas as his wealth; he did not allow his

customers to pay him with any type of silver coins so the payment had to be done with

gold. Shylock, on the contrary, believed everything he owned was wealth and money.

His jewelry, his cash, and even his daughter were considered part of his wealth.

To sum up, Silas and Shylock’s lives were made lonelier and distant by the money

and wealth they possessed. Their religion was affected by it and so was their life with

their daughters. What they had in common was basically their greed and love of money.
The differences they had were basically the way they made the money they loved so

much and what they considered to be true wealth.

Second, the destructive power of money is seen by the ruined relationships both

Silas and Shylock hold with others. Silas, after being excommunicated from his church

in Lantern Yard, became a very solitary person and “his trust in man had been cruelly

bruised.” (Eliot, 12) Annie Murphy Paul, a Yale University graduate in biological and

social sciences and a graduate in journalism from the Columbia University Graduate

School of Journalism, says on the psychology of a hermit, that people that are “timid,

insecure, and anxious…combine this tendency toward negative feelings with social

inhibition; an uneasiness in their interactions with other people.” This applies perfectly

to Silas, since he was timid, insecure, and anxious. Because of these traits in Silas, he

had a hard time communicating and interacting with his neighbors and the people of

Raveloe in general. Since he didn’t talk to the people in Raveloe, they had to create their

own speculations about him. Raveloe was a town of farmers, so the very sight of him

was strange and frightening. (Eliot, 6). Some said he was a sorcerer that “spoke the

devil.” (Eliot, 4) The lasses said “they would never marry a dead man come to life

again”, (Eliot, 6) and they all heard about Jem Rodney’s story of one of Silas’s

cataleptic fits, which they thought was an out-of-body experience. (Eliot, 7) However,

when Eppie comes into Silas’ life, his life as a hermit comes to an end. Silas needs the

help of the women to teach him how to take care of her. This helps him with his

relationships, because all of the people now see he is a normal person and they have

sympathy on him for taking care of a homeless child. As for his relationship with Eppie,

his adopted daughter, they have a deep, loving relationship, since they are “happy

together everyday” and she can’t feel she has “any father but one.” (Eliot, 183)
 As mentioned earlier, Shylock was hated by those around him. The question is

why? It was partly because he is a very mean and crude man. An example is when he

insults his servant Lancelet by calling him “the fool of Hagar’s offspring.” (II:v:43)

Hagar was Abraham’s concubine that was sent into exile with her son Ishmael. Like

Lancelet, Shylock more than likely treated everyone like this, with insults, which is how

he got his reputation. A CNN article, by Elizabeth Landau, on the psychology of

materialism says the following:

Psychological research suggests that, in the long run, experiences make people

happier than possessions. That’s in part because the initial joy of acquiring a new

object, such as a new car, fades over time as people become accustomed to seeing

it every day, experts said. Experiences, on the other hand, continue to provide

happiness through memories long after the event occurred.

Shylock was definitely a materialistic man, since he considered his jewels and his

money more important than his daughter. In the entire story of The Merchant of Venice,

Shylock is never shown to be a happy man. The psychology of the materialistic man fits

Shylock as if it were tailor made, therefore we can assume he is a money-oriented

person. Research done by Ryan Howell, assistant professor of psychology at San

Francisco State University, shows that a man who prefers material objects over

experiences will be slightly less happy than a man who prefers experiences. This is

because experiences create “a sense of relatedness to others -- getting closer to friends

and family.” (Landau) It is now easier to understand why Shylock had such a tough

time interacting with others in ways that wouldn’t make him end up as the hated person.

Shylock might have had the best intentions to work it out with his neighbors, but

psychology is a science and science is exact, therefore Shylock had to be distant from

friends and family if he was a materialistic man. The only way he could have had better
relationships with his family, friends, and mere acquaintances would be by valuing

experiences over material possessions.

The main similarity between Silas and Shylock and their relationships with others

is that because of their psychological mindsets, they were restrained from enjoying and

interacting with others in their town. If Silas had interacted and communicated with the

people of Raveloe as soon as he got there, nobody would have thought he was a sorcerer

or a dead man come to life. After getting Eppie, Silas realizes that interacting with

others is very pleasing and that it feels good. The reason why Silas doesn’t open himself

up to the people of Raveloe is that he wasn’t ready to risk having his trust destroyed

again. If Shylock had interacted and gotten along with the people of Venice, he would

not have had to worry about anyone doing anything behind his back. Jessica, his

daughter, would not have been so eager to leave and so ready to steal her father’s

possessions. Bassanio and Antonio would not have been forced to humiliate Shylock

and bring him down from his high self-esteem as tall as the moon is far from the earth.

The main difference between Silas and Shylock’s relationships is that they both

had completely opposite psychological personalities. As mentioned before, Silas had the

psychology of a hermit, while Shylock had the psychology of a materialistic man. These

two personalities are not necessarily opposites, but the character traits that come with

them, which Silas and Shylock had, are. Silas was shy, while Shylock was outspoken

and outgoing; Silas was insecure, while Shylock was very confident and proud of

himself; and Silas was anxious, while Shylock was indifferent and unconcerned, until it

blew up in his face and he realized he had been humiliated.

To sum up,
 Third, money is a destructive forcer that determines the eventual outcome of both

Silas and Shylock. Silas, after Eppie comes to him, sees his life changing drastically.

Silas clearly says if the money appeared before it would have been “a curse come

again.” (Silas Marner, 176) Eppie “had come to replace his hoard which gave a

growing purpose to his earnings, drawing his hope and joy continually onward beyond

the money.” (Silas Marner 139) Silas had discovered Dunstan was dead by the stone

pits and next to his skeleton was Silas’ bag of money, but Silas didn’t value the money

anymore, other than to use it for Eppie’s welfare. Silas ends up with both Eppie and the

money, which is a win for him, since Silas “learned to love and to act responsibly.”

(Demythologizing Silas Marner, 234) Silas is also “drawn back into a church

community” through Eppie’s baptism, (Demythologizing Silas Marner, 241) so Silas

not only recuperated his money and trust, but also “personal love and faith. The feelings

are reestablished in him, and he once again becomes a human being.” (Demythologizing

Silas Marner, 241) Silas goes through a very long process to ultimately become the

man he is:

Silas suffers more than any offense of his deserves: his friendship is betrayed, his

engagement broken, his community taken away, and his God found unfaithful. He

is reduced to loving his money; then that too is taken away. But he recovers

completely because he acts responsibly. He then finds a new friend (Dolly), a new

love (Eppie), a new community (Raveloe), a new God (Dolly’s “Them”), and has

his money returned. (Demythologizing Silas Marner, 230)

The novel Silas Marner “leaves its hero and heroine living happily ever after,”

((Demythologizing Silas Marner, 230) and seems almost surreal, like a fairy tale ending.

It seems that Silas is happy because he stopped pursuing money and wealth and in the

end Eppie says: “I think nobody could be happier than we are.” (Silas Marner, 194)
 Shylock ends up losing just about everything, and it is all because of money.

Shylock loses his daughter (The Merchant of Venice, 3.1.22-23), his money and jewels

(The Merchant of Venice, 2.8.15-22), and one half of his goods (The Merchant of

Venice, 4.1.350-52). Bassanio, on the contrary ended up well off with his beautiful and

wealthy wife Portia and his best friend Antonio. Shylock is considered a time seller

because he is a “usurer, lending only when he had full assurance, and profiting thereby.”

(Prodigality and Time in The Merchant of Venice, 29) Bassanio is a prodigal, which

means he lent money not only free of interest, but abundantly and extravagantly to the

person that might need it. Shylock “continually looks to the future” (Prodigality and

Time in The Merchant of Venice, 29) to see that no one steals from him and to make

sure he catches Antonio and collects his pound of flesh. Bassanio, “lives not on

expectation…but in the present moment.” (Prodigality and Time in The Merchant of

Venice, 29) For Shylock the present is unsatisfactory, since “even when he thinks he

has caught Antonio, he must look forward to the day he will at last take his revenge.”

(Prodigality and Time in The Merchant of Venice, 29) For Antonio the present is “a

chance to aid his fellows and for Bassanio it is immediate satisfaction.” (Prodigality and

Time in The Merchant of Venice, 29)

The prodigal appears to squander time but in fact treats it properly…the man who

hoards wealth which he acquires through the immoral sale of time continually

destroys his own happiness and is–with the passage of time

Shylock hoarded wealth and sold time, so he destroyed his own happiness. I he hadn’t

been so greedy and hungry for revenge, Lancelet would not have had to run away with

Jessica behind Shylock’s back. If Shylock had only accepted Antonio’s return of the

borrowed money three times more than it should have been, then the judge would not

have had to confiscate one half of all the goods Shylock owned.
 There are no similarities between the outcomes of Silas and Shylock other than

they both were still alive by the end of their respective novels. The difference, however,

is completely obvious and clear, as Silas succeeded and Shylock failed. William

Shakespeare and George Eliot seem to have the same opinion about how money affects

one’s eventual outcome. The story would have changed completely if Shylock would

have had an Eppie in his life, but he preferred money over friendship, his lifestyle and

what would eventually happen to him in the future. In a sense, The Merchant of Venice

is a lot more realistic than Silas Marner because it is very rare in life that a person will

live happily ever after.

To sum up, Silas and Shylock both started out the same: obsessed with money.

However as time passed by they started going down different paths. Silas, on one hand,

regained his trust in man, his money, and his faith in God; all because of a little angel

named Eppie, who came to save Silas just in time. Shylock, on the other hand, did not

have anyone to help him become a better man. Instead, his hate grew more and more

until he wanted to kill Antonio. This thirst for blood, plus his love of money and his

taking advantage of others by charging them interest rates, all caused his downfall, and

in the end, he had to pay a high price for it.

In conclusion, both Silas and Shylock saw their lives ruined by money, but only

Silas did it in time to save himself. Unfortunately, Shylock did not notice money was

destroying his life until the end, when he had to deal with the consequences. Silas and

Shylock also saw their relationships affected by money. Silas was living as a hermit

because of it and Shylock was living with reciprocated hate towards everyone. In his

daily life, Silas lived as a timid, though neurotic, man that counted his money very

frequently everyday. In his daily life, Shylock lived as a shameless and stingy man that

charged a high interest in the money he loaned. The main idea in these novels is that
those who pursuit great wealth and worship money will end up in misery, but those who

do not seek for great riches but noble love will, in the end, triumph in what they do.