~BRIEF context notes and necessarily incomplete analysis~

Questions without answers—only theories  Is the play anti-Semitic?  Does it criticize anti-Semitism?  Does it merely represent anti-Semitism without either endorsement or condemnation?  Are Christians right to call Shylock, the Jewish moneylender, a “devil,” an “inexorable dog”; or is he merely the understandably resentful victim of their bigotry?  Does Portia, Shylock’s antagonist in the courtroom, exemplify the best in womanly virtue, or is she a manipulative virago?

General thematic questions just as elusive of definitive answers  What are the obligations of majority cultures to minorities in their midst?  Do universally shared human characteristics outweigh racial and religious differences, or are such differences decisive?

But how, then, such prescience?  Not prognosticating Nazism and Civil Rights  Routine Jew hating in Western Europe— Marlowe  Rodriego Lopez

Will’s reasons for writing this play?  Capitalizing on/criticizing the homogeneity of the moment  England’s and Spain’s anti-Christian sentiment/s  France’s anti-Protestant sentiment  “Same is good; easy to control” = bloodshed

Why, then, Venice?  Venice  alternative social prototype  No natural resources, but $$ city in Renaissance Europe  Proximity facilitated trade of Asian products to Western Europe  FULL of foreigners, then  An “exceptional” tolerance of diversity— linked to the city’s wealth

Indeed… The duke cannot deny the course of law, For the commodity that strangers have With us in Venice, if it be denied, Will much impeach the justice of the state, Since that the trade and profit of the city Consisteth of all nations --Antonio to Solanio ( )

But it couldn’t have been THAT good…  Will disregards the “ghetto” of Venetian Jews—either by choice or by design  A consequentially enhanced material expediency  Marketplaces knew no religion/nationality

Dichotomous social relations  Christians knew no limits on money if it aided their friends:  Gentlemen at the opening  Antonio’s response to Bassanio’s loan request  Bassanio’s granting of Graziano’s favor request  Portia’s willingness to pay Antonio’s debt  Bassanio’s and Antonio’s gambling at long odds— but in a Christian scheme

Christians and USURY  Christians view dispensing of money as they think God dispenses grace  Hence Antonio’s eagerness to assist Bass  Interest on such loans blurs the friendships— an earthly thing—which justified having them granted at the off

Shylock and USURY  NO difference between human relations and money relations.  You can weigh flesh LIKE a ducat  “Silly Christians, thinking that human dynamics can somehow trump money.”  Christians humor such sentiments, if only incredulously

EXCEPTIONS  Two Shylocks? (2.8.15ff) and ( )  Christian hypocrisy? Isn’t Shylock’s “Hath not a Jew eyes…” ( ) more of an indictment of Salerio and Solanio for NOT displaying the Christian commandment of universal love—of neighbors AND enemies?  Portia’s middle ground—a respect for the letter of the law (such an inane way of choosing a husband) but also a willingness to go beyond that latter. She wears both hats, like any suitable lawyer.