Download pdf - DIVISION D: THE HEBREW LANGUAGES AND LANGUAGES OF THE JEWS, JEWISH FOLKLORE AND ART / חטיבה ד: הלשון העברית ולשונות היהודים, פולקלור ואמנות

World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות

/ כתב ההתקשרות של שיילוק — הערכה מחודשת SHYLOCK'S BOND RE-EVALUATEDAuthor(s): JEAN JOFEN, ELISHEVA CARLEBACH, ג'ין יפהן and אלישבע קרליבךSource: Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies / דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי,DIVISION D: THE HEBREW LANGUAGES AND LANGUAGES OF THE JEWS ,היהדות, כרך חJEWISH FOLKLORE AND ART / חטיבה ד: הלשון העברית ולשונות היהודים, פולקלור ואמנותpp. 91-96 תשמ"א / 1981Published by: World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדותStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23528733 .

Accessed: 19/06/2014 02:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies /דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.54 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 02:31:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wujs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23528733?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SHYLOCK'S BOND RE-EVALUATED JEAN JOFEN and ELISHEVA CARLEBACH

Every Jew and every sympathizer of Jews has had a feel

ing of shame and anger that a Jew was portrayed by

Shakespeare as demanding a pound of flesh from a

Christian as penalty for non-payment of a debt. It is

impossible to motivate this bond to a point where it could be made palatable or credible. Historically, we know that there was no law of this kind in Venice. If a Jew had tried to hurt a Christian physically, or

attempted to kill him the whole Jewish community not

only of Venice but of all of Italy, would have been

expelled and in Shakespeare's play The Merchant of

Venice the Jews would have pleaded with Shyloclc not to

go ahead with such a dangerous plan. Since this does not occur in the play, we must try to analyze the bond

and its conditions in a different light.

England's religious controversy at the time of

Shakespeare had nothing to do with Jews. Jews were

expelled in 1290 and did not return to England till about 1690. The few Marrano Jews (Spanish converts to

Christianity) who lived in England at the time did not

play any major role in the religious struggle of the

Anglican Church. We know, however, that there were

many attempts by the Catholics to kill Queen Elizabeth

(f.e. the Babington conspiracy) and to put the Catholic

Mary Stuart on the throne. Henry the VIII had broken

with the Pope when the Pope refused to grant him an

annulment from Katherine of Aragon to marry Ann Boleyn, the mother of Elizabeth. Henry the VIII founded the

Anglican Church and the Pope was regarded as the great est enemy of Queen Elizabeth and the Anglican Church.

Elizabeth prosecuted Catholics and all those who did

not follow the precepts of the Anglican Church. Pursu

ivants were scouring the country ferreting out relig ious deviants.

91



JEAN JOFEN AND ELISHEVA CARLEBACH

The religious inquisition had its own court, the dreaded Star Chamber headed by the Archbishop of Cante

rbury, since the Bishops appointed by the Queen took over the power of the Pope.

The Pope retaliated by stirring up rebellion in Ireland and sending Jesuit Priests to England to help Catholics

secretly say mass, which was forbidden and to help them

perform other religious rites.

The Pope was seen as the enemy of the Queen and was

openly attacked by Christopher Marlowe in his plays Doctor Faustus and Massacre at Paris. Since both these

plays were not published while Marlowe was alive only posthumously these attacks could occur overtly.

Shakespeare was very careful that the religious contro

versy which appears in his plays should be presented in a hidden fahsion since he attacks not only the Pope but also the Bishops appointed by Queen Elizabeth, an act which could result in immediate death.(1)

We will show that the bond in The Merchant of Venice is a covert attack on the Pope.

In the play we are told that Bassanio wants to court

Portia but has no money. He turns to Shylock, the Jew, to borrow 3,000 ducats for three months. This was

quite a large sum of money since ducats were gold

coins. The Venetian war was waged with 15,000 ducats.

(2) Bassanio assures Shylock that his friend Antonio would guarantee the loan. Shylock is aware of the fact

that Antonio•s possessions are on the high seas, his

ships are bound for Tripoli, the Indies, Mexico and

England. Shylock also knows that these ships are exposed to the perils of weather and pirates and yet he is willing to take Antonio's bond. Antonio tells

Shylock that he himself never lends or borrows but is breaking a custom to help his friend. Shylock then cites a case in the scriptures which deals not with direct interest but with indirect interest, e.g. the

pact that Jacob made with Laban that since Laban did not pay Jacob any wages for tending his flock, Jacob

would get all the ewes which were born streaked while the others would fall to Laban. Then Jacob cut a wand

92



SHYLOCK'S BOND RE-EVALUATED

which was streaked and placed it in the watering trough (Merchant of Venice I, iii, 77 ־־ compare also Genesis 30/31 ?1 and all the ewes born were "partly colored lambs".

Antonio responds to Shylock's tale of indirect

interest, that this was not interest at all but a

contingency the outcome of which was not in the hand of Jacob but in the hand of heaven.

Antonio: "This was a venture, sir, that Jacob serv'd for; A thing not in his power to bring to pass, But swayed and fashioned

by the hand of heaven".

(Merchant. I, iii, 92).

They subsequently decide on a bond in which Shylock will lend Antonio 3,000 ducats for 3 months without

any interest but at the end of the 3 months if the

money is not repaid at that time Shylock would be entitled to

"— ———an equal pound

Of your fair flesh to be cut off and taken In what part of your body pleases me".

(Merchant. II, ii, 151)

Antonio agrees to the condition since he expects the return of his boats, worth 3 times the value of the

bond, in two months time. Even though this is a very cruel and unusual bond Antonio does not perceive it as

such since he remarks:

"Hi thee, gentle Jew. The Hebrew will turn

Christian; he grows kind". To which Bassen io answers: "I like not fair terms and a

villain's mind". (ibid. 187)

This is a reference to the fact that Shylock who is a

usurer has lent Antonio the money for 3 months without

a penny interest

Why should a Jewish moneylender lend a Christian money

for 3 months without any interest?

93




The interest on 3,000 ducats for 3 months at 15$ would be 45 ducats a very large amount of money. If

Shylock did it to be Antonio's friend then why would he exact such a severe punishment at the end? If he was his enemy then why did he not lend him the money for 3 months at the usual interest and if he did not

pay at the end of that time take a pound of his flesh?

What was the role of the Jewish money lenders and why

did Jews become money—lenders? The Mosaic law: "Thou

shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother". (Deut.

23:19) had found its way into Canon Law. As the Jews were not subject to Canon Law the restriction thus

imposed on Christians became a Jewish prerogative, since the Jews interpreted "to thy brother" as meaning only "to another Jew". Thus Jews were free to lend to

Christians upon interest. Jews in the Orient were not

money-lenders since taking interest was not forbidden

according to Islam.(3) Pietro of Ancarano (1333-1416) had declared that Jews ought to be fully authorized to

lend, on being asked by the ruler of Mantua whether he

ought to compel Christians to repay debts contracted

with the Jews, Alessandra Certagni of Imola (1424-77) argued, like the Brescians in the 1440's that the Jews were damned in any case, so that the Pope, by allowing

them to lend upon usury, was not encouraging them to

commit any mortal sin.(4)

What was the status of the Jewish money-lenders and how

much interest did they charge.(2)

Antonio Grimani who became a Doge of Venice championed

the Jews as did his relative Marino Sanuto. Notes from a speech which the latter made to present in the debate of 10 November 1519 to expel the Jews from Venice show their economic situation and their position as money lenders at that time as well as the amount of interest

they charged:

"Had I, Marino Sanuto, been a member of the Senate as

I was last year, I would have spoken, though not to

speak for the Jews, because I could describe many sharp

practices of theirs in connection with their loans. I would have spoken on the capitoli and had them amended,

proving that Jews are even more necessary to a city than

bakers are and especially to this one, for the sake of

94



SHYLOCK'S BOND RE-EVALUATED

the general welfare. I would have referred to laws...

who advise us that Jews can be kept to lend upon

interest..•It will not be forgotten that a man can on his property borrow from the Jews at 15 percent in order to fulfil his own needs and feed and maintain his family. And I would have enlarged greatly upon this point, but God has not willed it so.(5) Were the Jews the only money-lenders in Italy at that time? D'Blossier Tovey a Christian Historian published a book called Anglia Judaica in Oxford 1738. In it he

speaks of the Pope as usurer:

But, when I faid the Jews were the fole Ufurers of the Kingdom, I meant to haye excepted thePoPE:

for he, indeed, was wont to carry on that infamous

Trade, in fuch a fhameful Manner, by the Help of feveral Italian Merchants, calfd Caurfmt, that the

Jews themfelves might have profited by His Ex

ample. For tho' according to the Jlriff, and Legal, Acceptation of the Word, his Contracts were not

Ufurious, yet the Effelts of them were the mod: un heard of Ufury. His Method was this: if a Perfon wanted a Sumtn of Money, which he cou'd not re

pay, under fix Months \ He wou'd lend it him for three, without any Intereft at all; and then Cove

nant to receive fivety per Cent, for every Month

afterwards, that it fhou'd remain unpaid. Now, in this Cafe, faid he, I am no Ufurer: for 1 lent my Money, abfo lately \ without Intereft; and what I was to receive afterwards was a Contingency, that

might be defeated. A Bond of this Kind, which

furpafles every Thing of Modern Invention, is tranf mitted to us by Matthew Taris1: and as our Law- yM'p''£

yers, by this Time, have, very probably, forgot their

Latin, I fhall oblige them with the following Tranf lation of it. ̂

95




Thus the Pope could exact payment for his loan while

Shylock was taken to civil court when he demanded

payment. The conditions to collect on his bond were made so difficult that he could not fulfill them. Not a drop of blood, exactly one pound of flesh no more,

no less. Why should he not be allowed to take less?

Shylock lost not only the principal sum but his entire

property was confiscated and having been accused of

conspiring against the life of a citizen of Venice he had to agree to let himself be converted and answer

"I am content".

Shakespeare wanted to show that lending money without interest for 3 months and then demanding 50 percent

per month is like taking away a person's life. Shylock says: "You take my life when you do take the means

whereby I live" (Merchant IV, ii, 376).

Dr. Jean Jofen, Chairperson, Dept. of Modern Languages,

Baruch College, CUNY, President Marlowe Society, USA.

Ms. Elisheva Carlebach, Lecturer for Jewish History,

Touro College, N.Y.C.

FOOTNOTES

(1) (See J. Jofen - "Polonius the Fishmonger", Notes and Queries Vol XIX No. 4 (April 1972) "Traces of the Book of Esther in the works of Shakespeare",

Studies in the Cultural Life of the Jews in England.

(Oxford, 1975)•

(2) Brian Pullon "Ridh and Poor in Renaissance Venice" The Institutions of a Catholic State, to 1620

(Cambridge Harvard University Press, 1971) P• 49'I • "

(3) H. Graetz, Shylock in der Sage, im Drama und in der Geschichte, (Krotoschin: 1899) p. 17•

(4) Pullon op. cit. p. ^95•

(5) ibid

(6) D'Blossier Tovey, Anglia Judaica (Oxford 1738) p.123.

96

