Shylock in William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice

Shylock in William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice

Shylock's character in Shakespeare's 'The Merchant of Venice' has long

been a controversial subject- more so now than it was when the play

was written in the late 16th Century. First performed in 1605, it

seemingly conforms to the anti-semitic stereotypes towards Jews and

their conduct but, unlike Shakespeare's rival's work ('The Jew of

Malta) by Christopher Marlowe, the main Jewish character is attributed

not only the negative traits associated with Jews at the time, but

also a side that sees to show humanity. Therefore, in this essay, it

is my aim to explore whether calling Shylock the villain in the play

is justified or not based on his actions and those of the characters

surrounding him (to see if there is evidence of provocation), and

placing this into the context of Elizabethan England and thus coming

to conclusions abut whether views towards the extent of his villainy

have remained the same.

The one single action in the play which seems most convictive of

Shylock is his argument with argument over the lending of 3,000

ducats-and the penalty fixed in case of its late return in Act 3 scene

1. The very notion of imposing such a brutal penalty seems to us

shocking in its severity and absurdity, but, of course, Shylock's

reasons for setting it must also be taken into account. It can also be

argued that it was Antonio's right to refuse it, and so Shylock's wish

to fulfil the terms of the contract cannot be classed as murder.

Antonio agreed to it, and he was fully aware of the implications.

Antonio asks of Shylock the loan of 3,000 ducats. Shylock is a

moneylender by pr...

... middle of paper ...

...s first audiences, those he would have received money

from, and therefore I am perhaps not judging Shylock as Shakespeare

intended his audiences to, and that I am 'prejudiced' by my modern

perspective which has not made me anti-semitic. However, as the essay

question asks for my interpretation of Shylock as a character as

opposed to an Elizabethan audience's, it is my conclusion that we

cannot blame Shylock entirely for his actions without blaming his

persecutors for their part in provoking Shylock to act as he did, and

the evidence showing that Shylock has not only a villainous side but a

more human one; capable of expressing complex humane emotions, leads

me to believe that we cannot reduce Shylock's character to that of

'villain', although of the characters in the play his is certainly the

most negatively portrayed.