This blog title is dedicated to my drinking compadres from last night who most likely woke up hungover this morning. I don't know what you might remember... I'll just say that eventually we put the llama back, and there's an end.
Right now I'm at one of my workplaces. There have been no customers since I got here at what my father calls "the ass-crack of dawn" (he has such a way with words). To pass at least one of the next four hours I have to sit here, I think I'll rant a bit about Shylock. As you do.
First of all, Shylock is not a caricature of a Jew like Barabas in The Jew of Malta. He's portrayed like a real person/character, with nuance and depth and ambiguity. Some people think this is anti-Semitic, since Shakespeare doesn't just go to the evil stock character. Sorry, this is a difficult viewpoint to articulate. I think it's kind of like, if you make someone an over-the-top stereotype then people don't really take the message seriously because they know it's a stock character; however, if you make a more realistic character then people are more apt to take things seriously. Which is probably why people don't get fussy about Marlowe's Jew; it was an obvious caricature and there's no reason to bother with it. But Shakespeare took great pains, in my opinion, to make Shylock realistic, and then people start to wonder if that means there's a deeper, more serious bias and discrimination at work. Personally, I think that's incorrect; I think Shylock better shows the hypocrisy of Christians than the maliciousness of Jews. Antonio tries to paint Shylock as so very different from him, but I think there are a lot of parallels that he doesn't want to acknowledge. In a way Portia acknowledges them very publicly, when she comes into the court disguised as Balthasar and asks, "Which is the merchant, and which the Jew?" as if they were indistinguishable from one another. The mistake confuses me further when I think that Jews had to wear red caps outside their ghetto so Shylock should have been wearing one in court and Antonio wouldn't have been. I'd have to check more historical background about that, but again, I think there's a deliberate point being made that Antonio and Shylock are not so different as Antonio would have them be.
But I get ahead of myself. Let's get some historical context. Venice was huge into mercantilism at the time; their economy depended on seafaring ventures. At the same time, it was also heavily dependent on moneylending, since people needed cash to keep the circulation going while waiting for their ships to come in. Now, here's where things get dicey. There is a verse in Deuteronomy that outlines the practice of usury (charging any interest on loans) and when it is or isn't okay. Here it is: "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury." Seems straightforward enough, but religious matters never really are, are they? Those of the Jewish faith interpreted this as sinful to lend money with interest to other Jews, but with Christians it was absolutely fine. Christians, however, interpret "thy brother" as everyone, Christians and Jews alike (because you know, Jews were just mistaken in their faith; everyone's a Christian who eventually will or won't come around to that knowledge). So Christians weren't allowed to lend with interest, but Jews were. Usury was one of the very few avenues open for Jews to do business, and that's how a great number of them made their living.
Back to the play. In the third scene of Act 1 Bassanio is trying to get Shylock to loan Antonio money so Antonio can give Bassanio the money to buy pretty things and impress Portia. Shylock reveals in an aside that he doesn't like Christians. This is a typical thing for Jewish characters in plays to say; they're all supposed to hate Christians on principal because Jews are devils and fiends. But see how he qualifies his opinion: "I hate him for he is a Christian, but morefor that in low simplicity he lends out money gratis and brings down the rate of usance here with us in Venice."
It's an economic issue! Antonio lends money to his friends without interest which takes away from Shylock's business and messes up the usurance rates. Naturally he would be pissed! More than that, Antonio spits on him and spurns him like a dog. Doesn't Shylock have every reason to think ill of Antonio? Antonio despises him for his usury, yet he is full willing to borrow money from him. It's totally hypocritical. Shylock's doing him a favor and he claims that he will continue to spit and strike him as his enemy anyway.
So what does Shylock do? He offers to lend Antonio money without interest, which is the CHRISTIAN form of moneylending. There's great language play with the word "kind, " which can mean "nice" but also mean being of your category, your kind, which in this Antonio and Bassanio's case is Christian. By agreeing not to charge interest but instead putting a pound of flesh down as collateral, Shylock is actually doing the Christian thing! I think Shakespeare's power of satire here is absolutely beautiful. Shylock mocks them by saying it's more Christian to offer up human flesh rather than have interest. By Antonio's reply, I think he kind of recognizes this farce, and is full willing to go along with it. Shylock is smartly saying that he act of their kind, but at the same time respecting Antonio's desire that they remain enemies with the whole pound of flesh thing. Honestly, I think it's some kind of genius.
For those who argue that it was Shylock's plan all along to murder Antonio, let me point out a couple things. One, Antonio is not prone to going to Jewish moneylenders, so there's no reason that Shylock would expect to have any kind of opportunity to harm/kill Antonio. Two, it is by INCREDIBLE and odds-defying coincidence that Antonio was unable to pay back the money on time. Antonio says that he expects "thrice three times" (nine times for those with math troubles) the value of 3,000 ducats (bonus points for calculating how many ducats he expects!) in two months, which is a full month before the bond is due. He has a number of ships in a number of different places; it might be worrisome if they were all together and could all get wrecked together, but they're not. Shylock himself describes Antonio's prospects:
"He hath an argosy bound to Tripolis, another to the Indies. I understand moreover, upon the Rialto, he hath a third at Mexico, a fourth for England, and other ventures he hath squandered abroad."
Yes, mercantilism is risky, but with that many ships out in that many different locations, you'd expect at least one of them to make it back on time to pay the bond. But SHOCKINGLY, they all wreck separately. I'm sure Shylock did not expect that the pound of flesh thing would ever really pay out; in fact, when he hears of Antonio's ships being wrecked he says "There I have another bad match" as if he is upset that Antonio can't pay him back. He only begins to really go after the pound of flesh when his daughter robs him and leaves him and Antonio's friends all help her get away with it. He's emotionally grieved, and he wants some kind of revenge, so then yeah, he goes a little crazy and bloodthirsty. I'm not saying that he's right in continuing to insist on killing Antonio rather than taking the money, or even 20 times the money (ughhhh, the math, it hurts), I'm just saying that I understand where that comes from. People do stupid things when they're grieving, and take it out on the wrong people. And then of course it bites them in the ass.
Other things of note: Shylock went about the pound of flesh thing completely lawfully. He could have tried to murder Antonio in secret; instead, he goes to the justice of the courts and procedes perfectly in accordance with the law. There's nothing technically wrong in that. In fact, the legality of the final sentencing of Shylock is what is questionable. The law stipulates that half his lands go to the wronged party (Antonio) and half go to the state, but the ruling that he must leave Lorenzo and Jessica his money in a will and convert to Christianity is entirely subjective. The law requires nothing of the sort; it's honestly just a really low-blow from Antonio. They set Antonio up to be the Job-like sufferer, but at the very end it is Shylock who is left destitute and suffering. He could scream and wail and spout his hate for Christians, but instead he merely says "I am not well" and leaves. It's a moment of profound sympathy for him. There are a number of other sympathetic moments as well, like the "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech. Shakespeare did not need to include any of that, but he purposely chooses to give Shylock a sympathetic voice. And it isn't a hate-filled soliloquy when Shylock is alone and secretly plotting his revenge; it is delivered openly and honestly to Antonio's kinsmen, which is something everyone can respect.
Alright, I think I've made a good case for now. If any of my readers (if I have any readers, that is) wish to debate this point or bring up any evidence I haven't addressed, please do so. Those are the kind of conversations I enjoy.
P.S. Sorry if this post is a bit scattered or linguistically sub-par; I'm not having a very eloquent day. I blame the llama.
Hi what do you mean by " He act of their kind"
ReplyDelete