"Merchant of Venice" |
|
|
|
Return to the top of this page.
Since World War II, it has been commonplace to dismiss The Merchant of Venice as "that Anti-Semitic play." But setting a drama in an anti-Semitic world is a far cry from actually promoting racism. For one thing, the antagonist is not "Jews in general," but Shylock in particular. In fact, two of the play's three Jewish characters turn Christian by the end, one of them quite willingly. And while Shylock is certainly one of the outcast-cum-villains of the millennium, he may be rejected more for his misanthropy than for his nationality; for when he stops behaving like such a stingy curmudgeon and gives a seemingly interest-free loan, he is even invited over for dinner!
What strikes us about our villain is that he is so thoroughly human; a little twist in point of view could easily turn him into a hero. Say the play had started with a scene we only hear about-the Christian wags baiting Shylock on the mark, spitting on him unjustifiably: wouldn't we identify with him at least as much as we would with Coalhouse Walker in Ragtime, or The Magnificent SEven, or Clint Eastwood in any number of movies? Revenge is very much apart of the American fable.
Venetian society of old may be just the thing to help us reflect on our own: after all, lynchings were commonplace in the American South through the 1950's; and Littleton and Laramie were just-were they last year? Perhaps there is a universal tendency to treat people who are different as outcasts and outsiders, aliens in our midst-the "Other." This drive preys upon our base instinct to want to be part of the in-crowd, a player on the winning team. It is the same instinct that makes us root for our favorite sports team, occasionally to excess. And while it may be bad, or even evil, it is simply something that societies do. Oddly enough, this sort of incivility helps to define a civilization.
But the parables of the New Testament-the Christian one-tell us that such definition is no longer acceptable: morality can no longer consist merely of following the rules, particularly the "big ten." We must place ourselves in the shoes of the Other-even when that Other is our enemy-and treat them as we would be treated. Ironically, since Shylock's rules are etched in stone tablets, not in confusing paradoxes of the Gospel, he meets his own moral standard more successfully than his enemies do theirs. He has probably never broken a commandment in his life (nor even cheated on his taxes) while the Christians exhibit great deficiency in loving their enemies as themselves. But he follows the letter of the law at the expense of its spirit, and therein lies the seed of both his triumph and his doom.
Perhaps Shakespeare wrote The MErchant of Venice, then, to indict cruelty under any guise. But more, by the end of the performance, I hope you will also question whether becoming "a member of the club" in an improvement over the Emersonian idea of "casting conformity behind" and being oneself-and not just in Shylock's Venice or Shakespeare's London, but in our own America.
Return to the top of this page.
Click on any image for a larger view.
Return to the top of this page.
| Page last updated 2/22/08 | You are visitor # Counter thank you! |
|
