Alaina Woodford

3/13/15

The Juxtaposition of Caricatures: Analyzing The Merchant of Venice

The Merchant of Venice is a Shakespearean play that raises questions of moral values,

religious ideals, and the concept of fitting within a society. Critics take varying stances on the

plays possible anti-Semitism and questions of belonging, and Ill be looking at the positions of

two critics today: Derek Cohen and Stephen Orgel. Cohens stance is one of analyzing the plays

anti-Semitism, while Orgel focuses on the reading of Shylock as part of English society. I find

Cohens view to be more suitable to my reading of Merchant, and thus will be spending the

greatest amount of time examining and qualifying his views as I explore how my own reading

differentiates itself from his. I believe my understanding of the play distinguishes itself from

Cohens primarily in my focus on what aspect of the play presents the main source of anti-

Semitism. Cohen places emphasis on the emotions provoked in the audience, whereas I reject

audience emotions in favor of emphasizing the frequent distillations of Shylock into two-

dimensional caricatures; namely, a Jew and a devil.

Ill begin by presenting Orgels views, which I found to be less relevant to the molding of

my interpretation of the play. Orgel argues that Shylock is presented to an English audience as

one of us (243). He justifies this view through a close reading of the etymology of Shylocks

name, as well as an examination of Shylock through the lens of an English, Shakespearean

audience. By applying various contexts to Shylocks marginalization, Orgel demonstrates the

complexity of Shylocks reality as both indispensable (due to his moneylending) and invalid (due

to his status as an outsider). I believe Orgels close-reading to be factually sound; yet I dont find
it to be a particularly relevant interpretation of Merchant. As a higher-level theory, its useful to

scholars who wish to delve deeply into theoretical models of Merchant; but I believe that to

average readers, the theory would seem erudite to the point of appearing out of touch with the

reality of the play. Certainly, Orgel is correct that an authentic Jewfor Shakespeares stage

(241) could be Portuguese; however, thats the sort of information supported by history and

unspecified by the play itself. Historians can note the record of suspicion cast upon Spanish or

Portuguese immigrants who claim the title of Jew, but nowhere in The Merchant of Venice is a

direct reference made to Shylocks possible Spanish origin. This makes Orgels arguments ripe

for theoretical speculation, but not the kind that can simply be extrapolated from the text.

Now Ill move on to Cohens views. Cohen believes Merchant to be deeply anti-Semitic,

and justifies his reading through his examination of the appearance of Jews as a concept within

Merchant. He believes that the idea of Jewishness is presented as devilish, ruthless, bloodthirsty,

and cruel. Cohen makes a distinction between an idea of Jewishness and a single Jew (Shylock)

saying that a single evil Jew does not make the play anti-Semitic; rather, it is the portrayal of

Jewishness as wholly evil that brands the play as prejudiced against Jews. Additionally, Cohen

argues that a play becomes anti-Semitic when it turns Jews into objects of scorn, hatred,

laughter, or contempt for the audience to devour with a kind of racially prejudiced enjoyment of

Jewish suffering.

It is this definition of anti-Semitism that I found crucial to shaping my understanding of

the play. While I believe that Cohen has the right idea overall in calling the play anti-Semitic, I

believe his definition of anti-Semitism rests too heavily on assumptions about the emotions of

the audience. Emotions are varying and subjective, so much so that it seems impossible to call a

play anti-Semitic or not based on peoples emotions, as the desired reaction will inevitably be
provoked in some people and not in others. The act of calling the play anti-Semitic becomes a

Schrodingers cat situation, with the play being both pro-Semitic and anti-Semitic until you open

the brains of the audience. For that reason, I dont consider the unpredictable emotions of the

audience to be adequate grounds for unwavering proof of anti-Semitism.

To provide an example of this emotional vacillation, I present Cohens discussion of a

possible moment of humanity for Shylock: when Shylock confesses he would not have traded his

wifes ring for a wilderness of monkeys. Cohen agrees that it is a human moment, but argues that

this shred of humanity provides not redemption, but a deepening of Shylocks inhumanity. He

claims this is because such a moment establishes that Shylock is capable of love and, therefore,

chooses to be heartless and cruel the majority of the time. Cohens fundamental assumption is

that an occasionally human Shylock is somehow worse than a totally inhuman one, and his

assumption is entirely unfounded in textual evidence. Cohen seems to be motivated instead by

how he expects the audience to react to various portrayals of anti-Semitic characters, and he

somehow presumes that audience will share his inclination. An argument as to whether or not

Shylock is more of an anti-Semitic character if hes partially humanized or totally monstrous

presents the kind of moral ambiguity that I dont expect an audience to agree on.

Therefore, in drawing from Cohens arguments to shape my own views, I will be

disregarding those based in emotional evidence, and focusing instead on those soundly based in

fact, and primarily in regards to the juxtaposition of references to Shylocks Jewishness with

moments of Shylocks wickedness. In order to do this, Ill be adapting Cohens definition of anti-

Semitism by removing the portion that depends upon audience emotions (makes [Jews] objects

of antipathy to readers and spectators, p.194). Having subtracted audience reactions, I

paraphrase the definition that remains as: the frequent repetition of Jewishness in association

with negative characteristics.

The key term here is association, because it is not the Jewishness or negativity

individually that make the play anti-Semitic, but the combination of the two. As Cohen says,

[Shylocks] Jewishnessto make the wickedness so much the worse, is presented as

synonymous with it (201). In other words, it is not the Jewishness or the wickedness,

respectively, that makes Shylock into an anti-Semitic presence; it is the Jewishness and the

wickedness. Nor is it simply that any imperfect and Jewish character must be an anti-Semitic

creation, because every person, Jewish or otherwise, has flaws. Indeed, I dont believe any

amount of wickedness in association with a character who happens to be Jewish would amount

to anti-Semitism. Instead, I find that it is the frequent repetition of Jewishness in conflation with

wickedness that makes Shylock out to be a monstrous caricature of the Jewish people. To

repeatedly juxtapose the two traits is to imply their connection, and to imply a connection

between Jewishness and evilness is fundamentally anti-Semitic, as based on my adaptation of

Cohens definition.

One scene that I find to be a particularly excellent demonstration of this juxtaposition of

caricatures comes at the beginning of Act 3 Scene 1, when Salerio and Solanio are discussing the

recent loss of one of Antonios ships. As Salerio wishes an end to Antonios bad luck, Solanio

states: Let me say amen betimes lest the devil cross my prayer, for here he comes in the likeness

of a Jew (III, i, 1819). Solanio is praying for Antonio, but remarks that he must do it quickly

(betimes), or else the devil will invalidate his prayer. However, he does not simply say that

Shylock is a devil; he says that the devil, in this situation, is a Jew. It is Solanios blatant

connection between Jewishness and devilishness that serves to equate the two traits, in the minds
of the Christian characters and in the minds of the audience and readers. This equation of

Jewishness and devilishness is intentional and specific; the Christians rarely choose to mention

Shylocks devilishness without mentioning or outright equating it with his Jewishness.

Sometimes this equation is as simple as referring to Shylock as Jew instead of by name; other

times, it is the dismissal of Shylocks good moments in reference to his Jewishness. One

particular moment in Act 1 Scene 3, when Antonio is grateful that Shylock has made him a good

deal, Antonio cant help but qualify it, saying: The Hebrew will turn Christianhe grows kind

(I, iii, 178). Shylock cannot even express kindness without Antonio mock-doubting his

Jewishness; clearly, there is such a strong narrative of Jewishness as evil that any evidence to the

contrary is contemptuously dismissed. Indeed, a moment of kindness from Shylock is so

ridiculous that Antonio must speculate aloud that Shylock is transforming into a Christian. This

demonstrates the equation of Christianity as kindness, which serves as the complementary half to

the assertion that Jewishness is evil.

To finalize the equation of Jewishness and evilness, there is no such equation made in the

play to devilish Christians. Indeed, in the example just mentioned, Christianity is marked

unambiguously as the kinder group, the assumed moral superior. And when the plays Christians

dont behave perfectly, its made clear that their faults are separate from their religion. As an

example, I take Gratiano, the least kind Christian. During the trial scene, Gratiano gleefully

torments Shylock, saying: Beg that thou mayst have leave to hang thyself (IV, i, 375). In other

words, Gratiano is the sort of kind Christian who enjoys seeing his enemy beg to commit

suicide. Even these undeniably anti-Christian values are allowed to belong to Gratiano alone, and

dont serve as a reflection of his religious values. When Bassanio condemns Gratiano for being

too wild, too rude and bold of voice (II, ii, 163), Gratiano swears to put on a sober habit, /
Talk with respect, and / Wear prayer books in my pocket (II, ii, 173175). As Gratiano rattles

off his new good behaviors, he sees fit to include his religious prayer books as a sign that he will

not only be a good person, but a good Christian. Not only is Gratianos boorish behavior allowed

to be his own, but the possibility of his bad characteristics being part and parcel of Christianity is

wholly dismissed, as Gratiano clearly states what good Christians should do and how that differs

from his own actions. Therefore, its clear that the Christians can be portrayed as flawed

characters, while simultaneously allowed to maintain their individualitytheir faults are not

equated with their religion, as Shylocks are.

In conclusion, while Orgel presents many alternate contexts through which to consider

the characterization of Shylock, Cohens analysis of the total vilification of Jewishness rings true

for my understanding of Merchant. Therefore, I found Cohens views most helpful in elaborating

upon my reading, and in sharpening my definition of anti-Semitism. Finally, I used that qualified

definition to determine whether or not Merchant could fit the description. After carefully

analyzing the juxtaposition and subsequent equation of two traits, Jewishness and wickedness, I

must conclude that The Merchant of Venice is indeed anti-Semitic.