How is Shylock the Jew depicted in The Merchant of Venice?

Answer 1

In the final analysis Shylock does not emerge as anything but a villain.  A man undermined by a controlling and, ultimately, destructive lust for revenge motivated, more than anything else, by a desire to do away with of a business rival.  The religious aspect holds very little significance for Shylock.  He has no problem in going to dine/socialise with the Christians even though he has earlier pledged not to do so.  
Shakespeare, throughout the play, emphasises that it is on a commercial basis that most of Shylock’s hatred of Antonio finds is genesis in  -  the conflict between the two men is not so much a matter of religion but rather one of mercantile ideals - this a major point of contention for Shylock.  It would tend to disassociate Shylock from any moral high-ground which would garner him sympathy.
Shylock says in Act I, scene 3, that even worse that being Christian, Antonio
“………………………………….…in low simplicity
[He] lends out money gratis and brings down
The rate of usance here with us in Venice.”
This is the root cause of Shylock’s deep hatred and sworn revenge on Antonio.  The reason, we realise, is a tawdry mercenary one – plain and simple.  And Shylock vows:
“……………….. Cursèd be my tribe
If I forgive Him!”
I am not ignoring that Shakespeare makes it clear that Shylock has reason to be bitter.  He does indeed.  Antonio has in the past treated Shylock with the greatest of disrespect and unkindness.  He has persistently insulted Shylock.  He has referred to him as a dog – a ‘cut-throat dog’.  He has kicked him, he has spat upon him, he has ‘cooled [his] friends’, ‘heated [his] enemies’, laughed and mocked him and scorned his religion.
Yes, Shylock has suffered at the hands – and feet – of the Christian, Antonio.  But is this sufficient reason to justify the attempt to kill him?  And do not disguise one’s hatred as righteous indignation at the disrespect of your religious principles!
Clearly, Shylock’s grouse with Antonio is more about Antonio’s negative effect upon Shylock usury-business than anything else!  In Act III, scene 1 in his tirade against Antonio he makes it clear that one of the main reasons for his hatred of the man is that Antonio  has had a adverse effect on his business dealings.  In Shylock words, Antonio has: “hindered me half a million…thwarted my bargains”.  He later admits that with Antonio dead and out of the way, he – Shylock – may have a booming and thriving and greatly profitable business.
“…for were he [Antonio] out of Venice I can make what merchandise I will.” [III;i]
Can Shylock’s quest for revenge gain any true sympathy as an understandable response to the admittedly harsh and unfair treatment meted out by Antonio when Shylock’s motives are exposed as being located in such a commercial context?  Can an audience be invited to commiserate with Shylock in such a case?  There seems to be no lofty principle involved here, just the blood-thirsty lust for revenge on someone who has got the better of him in business!
Much is made of his speech in Act III, scene 1:
“I am a Jew.  Hath not a Jew eyes?  Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?  Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is?  If you prick us, do we not bleed?  If you tickle us, do we not laugh?  If you poison us, do we not die?”
These eloquent words on the part of Shylock seem to be a heart-felt, pathos-suffused plea for recognition of the humanity of Jews after centuries of horrible and violent discrimination, oppression and suffering.  Shakespeare appears to put in Shylock’s mouth, a soul-stirring appeal for the equality of all humanity.  And it could be unreservedly interpreted as such had Shylock stopped there.  But he does not.  Oh no!  Shylock goes on and it is his following words that totally undermine and completely explode the perceived nobility of the above plea.  Shylock goes on to say:
“And if you wrong us, do we not revenge?  If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.  If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility?  Revenge!  If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example?  Why, revenge!  The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”
So what begins as an exalted plea for equality and the recognition of a basic humanity of all peoples descends quickly into a tainted justification and specious rationalisation to be wicked, malevolent and ‘villainous’ -  to do profound evil!  Shylock’s plea is actually his twisted excuse to kill another - Antonio!  It is nothing noble or exalted or praise-worthy at all.  It is the perverted logic employed to defend murder.  It is important to note the Shakespeare writes this speech in prose and not the poetic blank verse of the other characters.  Poetry lends nobility and an air of sophistication to speech, transporting it above the common and vulgar prose into which Shylock’s speech is put.  What is Shakespeare indicating here?  Thus, any ‘brownie points’ and sympathy Shylock might have gained while he was speaking is totally and effectively destroyed by the time he has finished speaking because he has betrayed his true colours as a man wholly consumed with bloody revenge and murder.
Should anyone in the audience still harbour some sympathy for Shylock, can it really be maintained by his words and sentiments shown later in this same scene?
Shylock expresses some shocking thoughts regarding the elopement of his daughter, Jessica, and her taking of much of his possessions.  Those who viewed him as the duly-protective father in Act II, scene 5 when he advised Jessica to be wary of the Christians as they celebrated carnival and to secure their home after entrusting the house to her, must be filled with revulsion by his outburst in Act III, scene 1.  These are the words of Shylock, the father:
“I would my daughter were dead at my foot and the jewel in her ear!  Would she were hearsed at my foot, and the ducats in her coffin!”
These words would seem to imply the Shylock views his daughter and his money to be of equal value, perhaps even preferring his money over his flesh and blood.  This can hardly be deemed an exemplary paternal response!  These words can hardly elicit any sympathy from the audience!  What manner of man is this?
In this scene, Shylock also reveals his malevolent glee at the misfortune of another – Antonio.  It is one thing to dislike another – it is another thing altogether to wish evil upon him and find great satisfaction in his misfortune.  It betrays a profound malignancy of character.  But Shylock is beside himself, elated as Antonio’s apparent financial ruin and thus inability to repay the bond.
“I am glad of it.  I’ll plague him; I’ll torture him.  I am glad of it.”
However, it needs to be said that this portrayal of Shylock is balanced with Shylock’s deep hurt at his daughter’s sale of a turquoise ring that he had been given by his late wife, Leah.  For once, Shylock is shown to value something other than material things.  The ring is worth more to Shylock than its actual monetary value.  This turquoise ring is an important symbol of Shylock’s humanity – his ability to love and grieve.  The turquoise ring allows us to see Shylock in an uncharacteristically vulnerable position and for us to view him as a human being capable of feeling something other than anger and lust for revenge.   It is the one softening touch allotted Shylock in the entire play.  But again any sympathy for Shylock gained by his emotional admission is immediately undermined by his stated intention to kill Antonio should he forfeit and thus remove him as a business rival:
“I will have the heart of him if he forfeit, for were he out of Venice I can make what merchandise I will.”
Shylock is resolute in his wicked murderous design – for that is what it is – let there be no mistake about it – Shylock plans to kill Antonio for the forfeiture of 3,000 ducats – a bond he originally called ‘merry sport’:
“I have sworn an oath that I will have my bond!”  And he carries this malignant intransigence into the famous Court Scene in Act IV; scene 1.
Shylock’s behaviour in this scene shows us plainly the true nature of the man!
He betrays himself as a man bereft of any mercy.  A man bent on the killing of another human being!  Shylock is offered ten (10) times the amount of the original principal.  He bluntly refuses the astounding profit!
“If every ducat in six thousand ducats
Were in six parts, and every part a ducat,
I would not draw them.  I would have my bond.”
Remember that this refusal comes from a man for whom money is extremely important – maybe more important than a living daughter!  No doubt about it, Shylock, here, is a man besotted with revenge!  We see his malignancy as he smiles while he sharpens his knife on the sole of his shoe – thirsty for the blood of Antonio.
He is advised on more on one occasion to be merciful and had he been he would have come out the hero – smelling like roses – but this is not the true nature of Shylock!  All arguments for mercy and compassion fall on stony ears.  A hard-heart is what is expected of a Jew – immune to calls of forgiveness and mercy - and Shylock lives up to this image and, indeed, betters the image imprinted in the minds of the audience!  He refuses to show one iota, one tiny drop of mercy.  He will not listen to any such pleas.
“………………………………By my soul I swear
There is no power in the tongue of man
To alter me.  I stay here on my bond.”
So deep-rooted is this man’s blood-thirsty lust for vengeance that when he is requested to permit a surgeon to be on hand to stop the loss of blood from Antonio’s wounds lest Antonio bleed to death, Shylock will not countenance even this concession pointing out that this is not a legal requirement in the bond!
His unhidden glee with Portia as she seems to side with his claim betrays him as the callous, wicked man he is!
This is not to say that we cannot understand Shylock’s motivation for behaving the way he does.   Throughout the play he is referred to as a dog, a devil, the incarnation of evil, he is referred to as less than human.  He is the victim of the Christians’ abuse, their vilification and their disdain.  He has had to endure their hurtful insults and discriminations for his entire life and with no recourse to the law which was also discriminatory against Jews.  Yes, he has been awfully victimised and harshly treated and unjustly dealt with.  He is not even given the respect of being called by his name but is called repeatedly - no less than twenty (20) times in this Court Scene - as ‘the Jew’ voiced with all the scorn and loathing possible to be mustered.  His very personal identity is denied.
Much is made about the Christian’s lack of mercy shown to Shylock in the final throes of the trial.  No one can deny this.  Shylock is dispossessed and forced to become a Christian.  But would this be viewed as something terrible by Shakespeare’s audience?   Or just Shylock getting his just deserts?  And in any case, since when is the bad behaviour of one an excuse or a licence for the bad behaviour of another?
That Shylock is a villain is to my mind beyond reasonable argument.  He is ultimately undone by his cancerous hatred.  We may argue about his motivations and his personality, but we cannot argue that his actual behaviour is anything less than villainous.  There is no doubt that there are points when the audience in invited to feel some sympathy towards Shylock, but understanding and even sympathising with the causes of one’s bad behaviour does in no way render that bad behaviour acceptable or any less wicked or villainous.