Conclusion of Textual Analysis

It does seem foolish to argue that Shakespeare's Shylock is the same kind of exaggerated monster that populates earlier drama, such as the Medieval morality plays or The Jew of Malta. Clearly, Shakespeare has invested Shylock with a degree of depth and realism that contributes to Shylock's status as one the great villains of the stage: a villain who is far more human than something like Marlowe's Barabas.

But a the same time, it seems clear (to me, at least) that Shakespeare creates Shylock against an historical and cultural backdrop that was intensely hostile to Jews. Given this social context and historical tradition, it should come as no surprise if some of this hostility against Jews should infiltrate Shakespeare's work. Shakespeare was, after all, a commercial dramatist and many commercial dramatists make their livings by pandering to, rather than working against, conventional social mores.

To make the claim that Shakespeare creates Shylock within an anti-semitic culture, and therefore invests Shylock with biased anti-semitic attributes, does not impugn the artistry of the drama. Nor does such a claim implicate Shakespeare himself as a monstrous anti-semite. All this claim suggests is that Shakespeare, like most of the rest of his society, was hostile toward Jewry for religious and cultural reasons, and that hostility is revealed most clearly in Shylock.

What these pages have tried to trace is the possible, or perhaps the probable, relationship between what was happening in Shakespeare's day and what is happening in Shakespeare's play.