regarding shylock

Answer 1

Shakespeare’s motives and intentions regarding the characterization of Shylock have been debated without any clear resolution or consensus throughout the centuries.   Does Shakespeare use Shakespeare to subtly criticize his era and his fellow Englishmen in their treatment of Jews?  Is the play a scathing critique of Christian hypocrisy?  Was Shakespeare anti-Semitic or was he simply exploited the prejudicial beliefs of his audience? Is the play ironic and a cynical look at Christian hypocrisy?  The point has been made that it is not a Shakespearean custom to have wholesale irony runs through a play.  I would ask you to consider this:  Could it be that Shakespeare, the brilliant dramatist, realised that making Shylock merely the expected villain would not be nearly as good theatre as a novel twist of the standard Jewish ogre/devil possessing real human feelings with which the audience could share and sympathise; that the presentation of such a non-traditional, and thus, controversial, character would evoke passions and discussion long after the play had finished, and that such interest would translate into increased ticket sales and, thus, greater profit and that this was a significant factor in Shakespeare’s particular creation of Shylock?  Acknowledging Shakespeare’s reputation as a shrewd and astute businessman – surely, such a position cannot be dismissed!
In the final analysis, however, 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 hold 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 one's religious beliefs & 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!