Lit 315
Dr. Cohen
November 7th, 2001

What of Shylock's Fate?

Had it not been for the inhumane treatment of the character Shylock, The Merchant of Venice would have been a lighthearted and childish piece. In fact, everything about Shylock seems out of place in this play. He seems too intense a person when compared to the other somewhat shallow characters. Indeed, he is angrier than the others, fueled by vengeance, but does this condone how inhuman he seems while interacting with the others?

The others are, of course, Christians in a time and place in which Christianity is the norm and Judaism is the exception. This sheds a certain light on Shylock as a person. He's an outsider. He's a man in a land that despises him - and he despises that land right back. Is this wrong? Is this inhuman? I think the portrayal of Shylock demonstrates the most human interpretation of all the characters in the piece. Being the target of so much contempt, disgust, and loathing, Shylock develops into a bitter, hateful, and vengeful man. He lives in a society that hates him without knowing him; how can he do anything other than hate that society?

This society treats him so poorly that his desire to exact one pound of flesh from Antonio, while not condonable, is understandable. His yearning for revenge is so strong that he wants to cause physical pain, and presumable death, to this man who, for as long as he has known he existed, has treated Shylock as though he were a waste of skin. Shylock's punishment for wanting to carry out this devious act against Antonio is harsh, just like the treatment that the Christians have been giving him all along. The 'justice' handed out by the Christians is nothing more than yet another attack on Shylock's very identity.

The Christians force Shylock to forfeit half of his assets and to convert to Christianity. The forfeiture of half of his wealth seems punishment enough, considering that he didn't actually kill anyone, nor did he take delivery of the pound of flesh promised to him by contract. Then, to make him give up his religion, the very reason they all hate him, and the root of all of this chaos in the first place, seems preposterous. This almost inconceivable act is an extreme type of punitive damage. It's not as though after he's become a Christian they can all be friends, so what would be the point?

The fact that there is a forced conversion to Christianity is something I would see as 'typical' in the grand scheme of Christianity, recalling the Inquisition or the Crusades. This ideal is the conversion of the 'heathens' to the 'true' religion, which, in my mind, goes hand in hand with the philosophy of the ends justifying the means. No matter what, if the non-believers see the light, everything was worthwhile.

It seems as though converting Shylock to Christianity may be a way for Shakespeare to have the Christians absolve themselves of having treated him so poorly in the first place. They ruin him. They take his money and his religious identity in the false name of justice, in a biased court, in a biased land. They had all looked down on him before, and they would continue to do so. However, punishing him in such a manner is as cleansing as confession for them. This would be supported by their behavior afterward: lighthearted and joyful, as though they had not just destroyed a human being.