The Coffee Marxist

Shakespeare’s masterpiece play “The Merchant of Venice” is often viewed by contemporary critics as a trendy exercise in fashionable anti-Semitic stereotyping on behalf of the author himself. Almost exclusively, scholars who read the book focus on the perceived anti-Jewish attitude of the story. Indeed, conventional bourgeoisie thinking would have one believe that the villain, the Decepticon to Antonio’s Autobot, is Shylock the money trader. However, upon closer inspection, the play’s purpose may appear more subtle than that. One must look at the cultural and historical context to see the simultaneous pandering and parodying that Shakespeare does, and to eventually arrive at the conclusion that “The Merchant” is actually an ironic exercise in exposing the inherent contradictions in Renaissance-era culture and the struggle between the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie classes in particular.

Firstly, whether or not it was meant as a direct indication of the author’s feelings, the Merchant is on the surface an undeniably anti-Semitic play. Shakespeare offers a true portrayal of the times and the prejudice tension between the Christian and Jewish culture by showing Shylock to be a “typical” Jew, greedy, full of schemes, greed and bitterness. But at the same time, this makes him the most human character in the play, in contrast to the “perfect” good guys. Most readers will find themselves identifying with Shylock. He seems to steal every scene in which he appears, quite similar to Satan in John Milton’s “Paradise Lost.” It is possible this was the author’s intention—to make the reader question the traditional “good guy/bad guy” structure. By forcing the reader into a position wherein they must see things from Shylock’s perspective, the play mocks the double standard in bourgeoisie morality, which states that to seek revenge against your oppressors is evil.

In her article in Religion & the Arts, Nicole Coonradt calls the play “the site of a metaphoric, performative conversion where Shakespeare employs the trope of anti-Semitism ironically to convey a coded message about the moral incoherence in popular Christianity—specifically concerning aroused anxieties about Christian identity as seen in forced conversions and the complete violation of the basic tenets of mercy and justice which highlight the hypocrisy in Christianity as Shakespeare saw it practiced” (1). Morality and the hypocrisy thereof are a reoccurring theme throughout the play, as are the clashes between religious classes. While at first glance “The Merchant of Venice” appears to celebrate the Elizabeth-era values of Christian ethics and forgiveness, the play instead exposes a contradiction between the proud belief in these virtues and whether or not they are actually practiced. While Antonio and the Christians hate him simply because he is a Jew, and not for any personal reasons, his hatred of Antonio is not without cause—Antonio had insulted and spit on him for being a Jew the previous week. The fact that the characters have to resort to deceit in order to win is telling, and the forced “conversion” of Shylock at the end shows signs that the author sees the bitter irony in the Christian character’s actions.

In another, earlier scene, Shylock seems to speak aloud to god about the pact he has just made for a pound of Antonio’s flesh: “O father Abram, what these Christians are/ Whose own hard dealings teaches them suspect/ The thoughts of others!” Yes, it appears that even our supposed villain finds their hypocrisy obvious. This scene is another that analyzes the perception of Shylock’s vengeance, as well as the connection between the culture and religion. Shylock prays, “If he [Antonio] should break his day, what should I gain/ by the exaction of the forfeiture? / a pound of man’s flesh taken from a man/ is not so estimable, profitable neither, / as flesh of muttons, beefs, or goats. I say, [….] and, for my love, I pray you wrong me not.” This scene not only uses his religion to tie the character to god, but also shows the religious constructs of morality at work and serving the ruling class.

This is the first and last time Shylock is shown expressing hesitancy for collecting his “pound of flesh,” and it reflects the relationship between religion and society. He is asking for god’s forgiveness, which ultimately reflects the morals implemented by the aristocracy—that is that his “revenge” is unjust. While he does not consciously believe that he is asking for the aristocracy’s forgiveness, the ideals implemented by the ruling class are what bring him to ask god for forgiveness. This shows that in this case, literally “religion keeps the poor from killing the rich.”

This issue of religious and racial discrimination is a constant undertone, and it is popularly assumed that the author condones the actions displayed. But was Shakespeare merely attempting to appeal to late Elizabethan society’s attitudes toward Jews as a people and a religion while at the same time questioning it? In fact, it seems he had no choice, since any work written at the time that was critical of the royal order could have been classified as political treason. Clare Asquith’s volume Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare shows the common perception of actors and playwrights at the time the play was written—as low as criminals and prostitutes. “Actors,” it says, “were classified officially as vagabonds; they practiced a trade that was routinely stigmatized and despised. As ‘masterless men’—men without a home of their own or an honest job or an attachment to someone else’s home—they could be arrested, whipped, put in the stocks, and branded” (2). Clearly, if Shakespeare had not written a play that appealed to the anti-Semitic consensus of the Elizabethan era, the consequences could have been quite severe for his career as well as his life. Could a man from such an oppressed class of people be completely unable to identify with the Jews as a minority?

Cedric Watts’ introduction to the Wordsworth Edition of The Merchant of Venice points out that regardless of what Shakespeare might have believed, the play has been used to fuel anti-Semitism since it was written. “In […] Nazi Germany, The Merchant of Venice was frequently staged: there were thirty productions between 1934 and 1939, for instance” (3). But the author cannot be blamed for the misuses of his work, and more importantly, the Jews as an oppressed minority in Nazi Germany showed the desire to bring out the weaknesses of minorities as a way to split people into groups, which seems to be the very thing the author was attempting to show in his play! The threat of exile or execution is enough to explain why Shakespeare chose to lace the play with anti-Semitism and to end the play with the Christians being victorious. But instead of ending with the Jewish character’s death, “The Merchant” ends with Shylock’s forced conversion, a technique that manages to appeal to the anti-Semitic crowd and also allow a final iota of sympathy for the antagonist.

This anti-Semitism, whether the author believed it or not, exposes something further about the culture of the time as seen through the play. English nationalist ideology, and indeed all ideologies, require the use or creation of the “other”—the “other” in this case being the Jews, used as tools to distinguish the English Christian identity by classifying what it is not. Therefore, the outsider status imposed upon the Jews by Renaissance-era Europe must be viewed as an attempt to elevate certain elements of society while keeping others down. Recognizing this, one must view the characters of Shylock, Antonio and Portia in a new light—Shylock as the oppressed minority, Portia as the intelligent woman in patriarchal society and Antonio as the stereotypical white Christian male landowner.

Thus, in The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is not so much settling a personal vendetta against Antonio as he is reversing the “master/slave” relationship imposed by the aristocratic status quo through his bond with Antonio. This outrages the high courts, judges and dukes of the story, perhaps not so much out of concern for Antonio personally, but because of the ideological threat to the dominant social order. This is most obvious during the court proceedings at the end, where the duke demands of Shylock, “How shalt thou hope for mercy, rendering none?” Yet again, the concept of “mercy,” an ultimate godly term being used to appeal to Shylock’s religiosity, is a convenient tool for the ruling class. To this Shylock slyly says, “What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong? / You have among you many a purchased slave, / which, like your asses and your dogs and mules, / you use in abject and in slavish parts, / because you bought them: shall I say to you, / Let them be free, marry them to your heirs? / Why sweat they under burthens? Let their beds/ be made as soft as yours and let their palates/ be season’d with such viands? You will answer/ ‘The slaves are ours:’ so do I answer you: / The pound of flesh, which I demand of him,/ Is dearly bought; ’tis mine and I will have it./ If you deny me, fie upon your law!/ There is no force in the decrees of Venice./ I stand for judgment: answer; shall I have it?” Out of nowhere, it seems that this “insolent Jew” has not only sought to avenge himself against one of his oppressors using the courts’ own laws, but is openly questioning the institution of slavery!

This is significant not only to the purposes and message of the play, but also to the accusations of anti-Semitism. It seems here that Shakespeare was questioning and mocking nationalism and bourgeoisie concepts of morality all at once! And if he was conscious enough to question these things, perhaps he was so with the popularized prejudice of the time! This villain, so-called, is supposed to be bloodthirsty and merciless, and yet here is, the only character willing to openly condemn slavery, and in a court of law where slave-owners are present, no less! This obviously put the ruling bodies in an odd position, since their own established laws seem destined to defend what this Jew is claiming.

Also important is the face that the duke invoked religion as a means to stamp out this Jew’s rebellious stance. Society at this time was dominated by a chosen national religion—in this case the Christianity that was practiced by the aristocracy—that was the guiding light of the national morality. This was true for most European countries, which complicated social relations by dividing people by religion. Religion dominated the lives of the proletariat, such that it was the opium of the masses. This is obvious is its constant manipulation throughout the play. It is even used by Portia, who says of religious mercy, “The quality of mercy is not strain’d, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven,” even invoking religious imagery in the process.

The exposure of class conflict and ideology does not stop there, however. Economic and sexual classes are also scrutinized. At one point, Shylock says, “Signior Antonio, many a time and of/ In the Rialto you have rated me/ about my moneys and my usances: / still have I borne it with a patient shrug, / for sufferance is the badge of all our tribe.” Shylock is saying that he is used to being used, well-versed in being discriminated against, if not for his race or religion, then for his occupation. Indeed, in their September 28, 2006 article, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) points out this double-edge of the character, which may have been the intention of the author all along. “The portrayal of Shylock […] is nuanced- he is an empathetic character who is seen as not only a victimizer but also a victim of his times” (4). Being a banker of sorts, Shylock has probably used trickery before to attain his ends. In financial terms you can see the rise of capitalism; i.e. banking and the need for some sort of credit line to establish industrial enterprise. The economic debt of the bourgeoisie and small business/landowners is a plot device itself. There we see the relations of bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie. Antonio, the “merchant” in question needs to borrow from the moneylender (who would today assume the role of a banker) because of the story’s place in history during pre-industrialization and the decline of feudalism.

Shakespeare’s careful attention to these cultural clashes shows a man not caught up in the ideological line of the aristocracy, but a man on the outside who is peering in while remaining politically correct. In act III of “The Merchant of Venice,” there is a short monologue of Launcelot joking about impregnating a Moorish woman—something that often happens when imperialist countries invade poorer nations. This echoes over into the tension between Shylock and Antonio, who both begrudge each other ands fear the poison of intermingling between their peoples. Yet again, there is a hint of irony. Michael Radford, director of the 2004 movie version of The Merchant starring Al Pacino as Shylock, says in his article Shakespeare and the Jews: “[…] I ask you this: could a man who wrote: ‘If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die…?’ or ‘You, that did void your rheum upon my beard, and kick me as you spurn a stranger cur over your threshold–money is your suit. What should I say to you? Should I not say: Hath a dog money? Is it possible a cur can lend three thousand ducats?’ […] Could a man who wrote these things possibly be an anti-Semite? [….] The answer is of course no. It is absolutely impossible (5). And furthermore, could a man who quietly mocked ethnocentrism and imperialist patriarchy and used it to show moral hypocrisy be a racist?

Expanding on this, the subject of patriarchy crops up again and again in the course of the play, most obviously by Portia having to dress up as a man in order to gain respect from the aristocrat male characters. While in court, Portia, even though she is sympathetic to Shylock’s stance as a member of an oppressed class of people seeking revenge, chooses in the end to side with the law and the state. Portia’s loyalty to the “law of the land” merely shows how she falls into the patriarchal trap of the bourgeoisie courts, trained as she is to believe that they represent true “law” and “order” beneficial to all men rather than the interests of the dominant class—in this case white Christian male landowners—who ironically are the same class that saw her subservient as a woman in the first place. Throughout, Portia and Shylock have more in common then they probably realize. While one is a lady about to be married, the other is a moneylender seeking the repayment of a debt. In these olden days credit and marriage were the primary means by which Elizabethan aristocracy acquired money, and thus both have been reduced to commodities. This same way of thinking is the main reason women marry men, today as it was back then—they believe that being married will allow them to overcome oppression and gain social status. Shylock and Portia are both social outcasts alienated from the Christian and patriarchal world of Shakespeare’ play.

Conflicts between different classes of people are absolutely rife within the pages of “The Merchant of Venice,” and upon examination it becomes obvious that this could not simply be a coincidence, an accident made by a rich and privileged author who mocked his world while attempting to uphold it. However subtle it may be, the countless examples of the text challenging bourgeoisie culture are too numerous and well-thought-out to be a mere mistake. Above all, one need only look at the eloquence of Shylock in comparison to the supposed heroes of the story, showing that Shakespeare saved some of his best writings for the “villain!”

Works Cited:

1. Coonradt, Nicole M., Religion & the Arts; Mar 2007, Vol. 11 Issue 1

2. Asquith, Clare. Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare, PublicAffairs (2005).

3. Merchant of Venice, Wordsworth Editions (2000). Introduction by Watts, Cedric. ISBN: 1840224312

4. Anti-Defamation League (ADL). New York, September 28, 2006. http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Education_01/4898_01.htm

5. Radford, Michael. Shakespeare and the Jews, 2004. http://www.landmarktheatres.com/mn/wsmerchantofvenice.html