Shylock: Victim or Villain?

9th Jul 2018

Depending on the times in which readers were born, the character of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice
may produce either feelings of hatred or sympathy in them. Since Shakespeare’s Elizabethan audiences
were immersed in a society that looked down on Jews for religious and economic reasons,1 they may have
been predisposed to label this character as the villain of the play who dastardly demands Antonio’s
“pound of flesh”. Fast-forward to the twenty-first-century, the egalitarian society modern readers often
promote would probably take into account the mistreatment Shylock receives from the ‘merciful’
Christians themselves. As Harold Bloom suggests in his book William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of
Venice, “Shylock, of course, is not morally superior to Antonio” (76), but at the same time “the one
person towards whom Antonio shows no charitable feeling is Shylock” (52). Therefore, being aware of
the reasons why Shylock qualifies as villain, this article will attempt to show why he is also a victim,
taking into account the view literary critics Harold Bloom, Frederick Turner and Emma Smith have on
this matter. Furthermore, since the history of both Christians and Jews is closely related to the Bible, it
will also be beneficial to refer to the recurrent intertextuality between Shakespeare’s play and the Holy
Scriptures.

According to Harold Bloom, the fact that Jews had been forbidden to reside in England since the year
1290 makes it unlikely that Shakespeare could have been acquainted with any Jew who openly practised
their religion—unless they managed to do so behind closed doors (139). His knowledge of Jewish
customs could have been acquired through the Bible itself, either by attending the Anglican churches
where the Bishop’s Bible was in use and some of its passages were explained, or by reading a personal
copy of the Geneva Bible.2 What some pundits aver is that Shakespeare never visited Venice himself; 3
otherwise he would have been aware that, at the hub of this multicultural city, Jews did not enjoy all the
privileges Christian Venetians had.4 In fact, since the ownership of land was prevented from them, Jews
were constrained and segregated in what is remembered as the first ethnic enclave of its kind—the
Venetian ghetto (Bloom 118).

The character Shakespeare creates does not reside in a ghetto, but he does have one of the few
occupations that the city permits them to perform: usury (Turner 87). In The Merchant of Venice
(Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations), Harold Bloom points out that the Venice Shakespeare writes
about is transitioning between a feudal society based on land, to one where “money comes from
speculative trade” instead of production (113), and it is in this society where Shylock—and many others
of his kin—take on the role of banks, lending money to those in need for a stipulated price. Even so, at
the time money-lending was not a favourably seen occupation, since authorities such as Aristotle and
other medieval scholars had decried the taking of interests (Turner 57). For this very reason, it is
understandable why Shylock’s counterpart, the christian Antonio, refuses to “neither lend nor borrow / By
taking nor by giving of excess” (1.3.62-63). As the representative of ‘good’ Christians, Shakespeare
presents this character as someone who would not dare take advantage of any of his fellows to enrich
himself.

In Shakespeare’s Twenty-First-Century Economics, historian Frederick Turner avers that this Christian
custom of not taking interests was only applied among those who professed the Christian faith. As he
explains, “Christians had always been free to charge interest against Muslims and Jews” (87), just as Jews
only foisted levies on those who did not share their ancestry. This is in accordance with the biblical
passage of Deuteronomy 23:19, 20 where the mosaic law states that no Israelite should make their
brothers pay interests of any kind, but they could ask foreigners to do so.5 As some biblical historians
express it,6 when the Mosaic law was ‘given’ to them, most Jews were farmers; therefore “if a farmer
working his ancestral lot asked for a loan, it was most likely because he had come into need” and would
be unable to pay for an excessive amount imposed on them (New World Translation of the Holy
Scriptures, Exodus 22:25). Moreover, it would not be tender-hearted to make profit out of a materially
bereft brother as this would go against the biblical principle of loving one another (New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Leviticus, 19:18). On the other hand, Israelites who did business with
foreigners by lending them money could indeed profit from the foreigner’s gains by means of this
interest, as it was taken for granted that the businessmen who would enter Israel’s lands for commercial
purposes would not be in economic peril.

Even though in the Venetian society only Jews were regarded with distaste for demanding interests when
lending money, this was a custom that was prevalent in Christianity as well. Harold Bloom mentions how
“the law against lending money at interest was lifted in 1571, and a rate of 10% was made legal” (Bloom
126). The fact that it was legal is seen when Antonio fails to repay his debt, for which Shylock takes him
to court to satisfy the bond they had sealed with a notary. No mention is made of the bond being illegal.
On the contrary, Portia mentions: “this bond is forfeit; / A pound of flesh, to be by him cut off / Nearest
the merchant’s heart” (4.1.29,30); the usurer has the legal right to remorselessly extract a pound of
Antonio’s flesh to satisfy their deal. While the Jew is abhorred for profiting from other people’s gains,
Antonio’s occupation as a merchant is not as unfavourably seen as Shylock’s. Perhaps it should have been
if both of them had been placed on equal terms. From his part, Antonio’s gains come from the job
mariners did for him. As a merchant, he invests in sea-voyages that have the sole purpose of buying or
draining the wealth from other parts of the world such as Tripolis, the Indies, Mexico and England
(1.3.12), in order to sell them at even higher prices that would ultimately make him “sufficient” (1.3.11).
Since he is a Christian, nobody questions the ethics and morality of his trade.

In view of Antonio’s enmity towards Shylock—to the point where he calls him “a misbeliever, cut-throat
dog” and would even “spit upon [Shylock’s] Jewish gaberdine” (1.3.110,11)—it can be inferred that
Christians loathed their fellow Jews. Seeing them as the nation that conspired against Christ was a key
factor that fostered the contempt of those who considered themselves to be Jesus’ true followers. In
Shylock’s words, Antonio “hates our [Shylock’s] sacred nation” (1.3.47), while the Jew despises Antonio
“for he is a Christian” (1.3.41). But it is not only Antonio who overtly expresses his aversion towards the
Jew. When Jessica who is his “own flesh and blood” (3.1.43) rebels, Shylock accuses Solanio and
Salarino that they knew about his daughters’ plans to elope, to what they mockingly reply that they did.
When Shylock says “she is damn’d for it” (3.1.39)—showing his genuine concern for his daughter’s
position before God after having forsaking her beliefs and her culture to convert into Christianity just to
marry Lorenzo—Solanio and Salarino refer to him as the devil in disguise, adding sexual remarks to
ridicule his persona (3.1.36-42). Gratiano is another character who jeers at the Jew during the trial scene.
At one point, he refers to Shylock as a “damn’d, inexecrable dog” (4.1.128) whose “desires / Are wolvish,
bloody, starved, and ravenous” (4.1.138) and who should beg the court to be given the “leave to hang
[himself]” (4.1.164). Only a few examples of the ill-treatment Shylock received from Christians have
been mentioned, enough to see them as wolves in sheep’s covering, recognised as rotten trees by the
worthless fruits they produce (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Matthew 7:15-20).
Although Christians professed love and mercy towards their neighbours, their behaviour towards non-
Christians set them apart from the biblical ideal. On the light of these issues, Portia’s initial question to
the Duke stands out: “Which is the merchant here, and which the Jew?” (4.1.169). They may not be
equally seen by the Venetian society, but ethically speaking they are each other’s  immoral counterparts.

Although it is true that, through his belligerent attitude and his thirst for revenge, Shylock earns most of
the hatred that he is shown, not one of the Christians even considers showing real mercy towards the Jew
when they meet at court. Portia reminds Shylock that mercy “is an attribute to God himself” and that it
“seasons justice” (4.1.195, 197). This is a concept Shylock probably knew well as the God he professed to
serve is described not only as upright, merciful and compassionate even towards those who do not serve
him well (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Deuteronomy 32:4; Exodus 34:6, 7).
Unfortunately, the “oath in heaven” (4.1.227) Shylock has done weighs more to him than the clemency he
should display. For literary critic Harold Bloom, Shylock uses “his Jewishness as an excuse for personal
vindictiveness”,7 which have little to do with God, and all to do with his own hurt self. Knowing that the
Jews are historically and biblically known for being legalists who rarely showed mercy, and being aware
that Shylock would not relinquish his grudge and accept the money he is offered, Portia wittily leads him
to believe that he has the upper on the matter hand since “the law allows it, and the court awards it”
(Mark 12:1-7). Once she reveals her trickery, not only does she prevent him from taking the money
Bassanio has offered, she also says: “Thou shalt have nothing but the forfeiture, / To be so taken at thy
peril, Jew” (4.1.343,344) For he has sought the life of one of Venice’s citizens, Antonio has the legal right
to take hold of half of Shylock’s goods, while the state keeps the other half. And not only is his property
taken away from him, his own life hangs from a thread as whether he lives or dies rests in the Duke’s
hands.

Once again, Harold Bloom makes us see that the law Portia invokes does not equally apply to all
Venetian citizens, but only to those who are “alien” (4.1.349). 8 Adding to this idea, author Emma Smith
in her book Shakespeare’s Comedies: A Guide to Criticism mentions that for the Venetian state, aliens
were seen as a threat that could eventually be the cause of “economic upheaval and foreign invasion”
(203); hence why they would either be “assimilated into the dominant culture”—as is the case of Jessica
and of Shylock himself after his posterior conversion—or they would be “completely disempowered”
(211), as Shylock is when he loses his goods and means of maintenance.

Even the supposed ‘mercy’ that Antonio bestows is not offered to Shylock himself, but to Jessica, who
has married into Christianity. It is to her that Antonio gives the possessions he has received at court. This
once again shows how the biblical principle to love their neighbour and show mercy and compassion to
others does not seem to apply to those outside of their social and religious circle. Moreover, in his most
famous soliloquy, Shylock reminds the audience that Antonio has “laught at [his] losses, mockt at [his]
gains, scorn’d [his] nation” because he is a Jew, ignoring that Jews are human beings too. Shylock asserts
that those who first sought revenge and scorned others are the Christians themselves who have no
compassion or regard towards non-Christians and whose truculent behaviour is exacerbated by their
purchase of slaves, which they use as “dogs and mules” (4.1.189-103). Carrying their religious
convictions rather lightly, the Christians leave Shylock utterly bereft of his possessions, while forcing him
to convert into the religion of his foes. This they believe to be an act of compassion, although Shylock
never shows signs of having repent of his sins or being willing to reconsider his acts.

The book Shakespeare’s Twenty-First-Century Economics argues that “Shakespeare is morally ahead of
his time” (85). At first he portrays an mainstream image that the people, his audiences, have of the Jews, a
stereotypical one that shows a man who is ravished by his wealth, who cares not for his own family, who
is selfish, proud and aggressive towards anyone who dares approach him. And yet, Shakespeare has the
ability to draw us closer to this character, to show us Shylock’s distress and hardships, which originate in
the Christian’s distaste towards his culture. He lets us see that Shylock is a “wounded human being” (85),
and this knowledge produces in us the catharsis, the sympathy and the pity that we feel when he is
dispossessed of everything he once held dear. Shakespeare does not fail to depict the many grievances
Shylock’s pride causes others such as Antonio, but he also writes about the reasons Shylock has for doing
so.

Shakespeare’s portrayal of Shylock and Antonio as representations of Judaism and Christianity depict the
hatred that ignited between both religions who in theory studied the same Scriptures. As the dominant
religion of the time, Christianity was the source of ill-treatment towards the Jews and other religions who
did not adhere to their dogmas. Although by the time Shakespeare wrote about Shylock Jews were
allowed to live in Venice, they were also forced to live as aliens, wearing distinctive clothes and
performing only a certain amount of jobs, for which they were often despised. Although reality showed
that Christians were equal to Jews in many terms, they still regarded each other as foes, which caused
them to be objects of each other’s hatred. The mercy the Christians proclaimed was only limited to other
Christians, while Jews would rather stress the need for uprightness and their own selfish views over
compassion and love, which, after all, are the spirit of their Mosaic law. For these reasons, one cannot
categorically state that Shylock is a victim, or a villain, since he appears to be both—as are the Christians
themselves. Shylock is indeed mistreated and this does produce feelings of compassion towards him, but
we cannot forget that he has also fostered and earned most of the hatred that he was granted. Nonetheless,
he is a remarkable character whose existence allows us to re-examine our own behaviour towards others,
as well as our values and beliefs.

Endnotes
1. Malamat, Abraham. A History of the Jewish People. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976. Print. Page 413.
2. Inberg, Pablo. El Mercader de Venecia. Barcelona: Losada, 2006. Print. Page 19.
3. Tosi, Laura. Visions of Venice in Shakespeare. Kentucky: Routledge, 2011. Print. Pages 17, 18.
4. Inberg, Pablo. Ibidem. Page 28.
5. All references to the Bible are taken from the translation made by Jehovah’s Witnesses. New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (study edition). New York: Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society of New York, 2018. Print.
6. Jehovah’s Witnesses. “Moneylending and Christian Love.” The Watchtower. 1 Aug. 1982: 28-31. Print.
7. Bloom, Harold. William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2010. Print. Page 88.
8. Bloom, Harold. Op cit. Page 51.

Works Cited

Bloom, Harold. William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. New York: Infobase

Publishing, 2010. Print.

Inberg, Pablo. El Mercader de Venecia. Barcelona: Losada, 2006. Print.

Jehovah’s Witnesses. “Moneylending and Christian Love.” The Watchtower. 1 Aug. 1982: 28-31. Print.

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New
York, inc, 2013. Print.

Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth, 2007.
Print.

Smith, Emma. Shakespeare’s Comedies. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. Print.

Turner, Frederick. Shakespeare’s Twenty-First-Century Economics. New York: Oxford University Press,
1999. Print.