There doesn’t seem to any consensus on Shakespeare’s opinion of Jews. Many scholars seems to be divided on the issue. The Merchant of Venice is often cited as either proof of Shakespeare’s anti-Semitism or viewed as proof that he wasn’t because he showed Shylock’s “humanity”, citing the oft quoted lines “I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions?..” as justification for the manner in which Shylock behaves. What I never see mentioned of is the presence of converted Jews.
Couldn’t there would have been people living in England in Shakespeare’s day who were descended from forcibly converted Jews(not all of them necessarily whole-heatedly true converts to Christianity)? And besides, for anti-Semitism to be prevalent in a country doesn’t require the presence of Jews. There were centuries of anti-Semitic literature and folklore (which Shakespeare would have been exposed to) in England to ensure that.
I look forward to your feedback.
davidmich
There were Jewish converts in England at the time, and in fact, just a few years before the performance of the Merchant of Venice, one of the big news stories was the execution of Rodrigo/Roger Lopez, the Queen’s doctor, a Portuguese convert from Judaism, who was accused of plotting her death.
The Lopez case brought about a revival of anti-Semitic sentiments in England, and caused a encore performance of Marlowe’s “The Jew of Malta”, and probably was one of the reasons that Shakespeare wrote “The Merchant of Venice”.
We’re never going to know because really all we know about Shakespeare, aside from some mundane details about his personal life, is through his plays and his poems. And “The Merchant of Venice” is deliberately ambiguous. Shakespeare’s plays positively brim with themes related to moderation, temperament, and reason. If I had to guess, and it’s just a guess, he would likely have seen a Jew-hating craze as being silly and irrational, and his use of Shylock as a villain while also including his famous speech was a way to both capitalize on the dislike of Jews while asking an uncomfortable question. It’s been pointed out that not only does Shylock get the best speech, but the “trial” that brings him low is a preposterous kangaroo affair that would have seemed silly to anyone even then.
But in that time and place, being nice about someone’s race or religion wasn’t even a thing. “Anti-Semite” in the sense we use the term today makes sense only in the context of a society where tolerance of others is even a common concept, which, then, it wasn’t. That certainly wasn’t the case in Elizabethan and Jacobian England where, I have to point out, they were living in a world where just being a slightly different kind of CHRISTIAN was enough to fight wars and burn people at the stake, and your social status determined how much and what kind of fabric you could legally wear. Jews were, by law, banned from England. Legal or moral equality in the sense we today know it was as unknown to them as airplanes. Being “anti-Semitic” by our standards was in Shakespeare’s time not even a concept; Jews were about one step away from space aliens to an Elizabethan Englishperson.
Some people think he was jewish, or descended from jews himself. This is as likely as similar claims for many others.
There are also claims that he was black, or catholic, or a woman, or an aristocrat — on the grounds that an ordinary person of the lower middle-class wouldn’t have had the intelligence — etc. etc… These too shall pass.
As for ‘forcibly converted jews’ in England, the jewish population was expelled in 1290; allowed to take money and goods, but with their land and houses confiscated ( of course they could have prudently converted this to cash they could take with them… Those who remained did convert, but that was not ‘forcible’ conversion, any more than those given the chance to convert to Islam or pay the non-muslim tax.
Any of those still living would have been rather old; but no doubt their descendants had just continued as happy christians, intermarried, and forgotten any jewish heritage. ( Which is why I believe every european must have some jewish blood. ) There were no Marranos covertly practising their rites in secret in mediaeval England.
There were conversos from abroad, as the Captain says, and I’ve never heard of them being persecuted for that. Most people wouldn’t have met jews in the country at large until maybe the 18th century, long after they were allowed back ( and in Scotland, a tiny poor country with few inhabitants, not until the early 19th century ).
Most christians — not just in Britain — would have been exposed to the myths against jews ( Christ-killers etc., child murderers — Hugh of Lincoln ) but not felt at all deeply about these probably mythical beings, except in those parts of the continent that had them as neighbours and resented them. I understand some jewish sects resented their christian or muslim neighbours as a balance, and might have been equally intolerant had they been the majority. People suck regardless of their religion.
By modern standards, he would almost certainly qualify as antisemitic, but then, who in his day wouldn’t? He certainly had at least some sympathy for the Jews, though, and his play is a lot more understanding than Marlowe’s.
There were Jews in England who converted at sword point to save themselves during the Coronation Massacre. They may have just surrendered. But this was forced conversion nonetheless.
http://ddickerson.igc.org/cliffords-tower.html
CORONATION OF KING RICHARD I
"Many who essayed to escaped were ruthlessly butchered; others, among them Jacob of Orleans, slew themselves when the alternative was baptism. A few Jews, however, saved themselves by this alternative; one of these [was] the rich Benedict of York . . . . The riot lasted twenty-four hours; the chief justice and some noblemen, whom the king sent to quell the disorder, were forced to withdraw. "
It’s possible to read Shylock as being in the wrong by pursuing his “bond” without it being a reflection on his whole faith.
I read of a production which used a nice touch: during the trial scene, Shylock’s friend Tubal was onstage with him, pleading for him to forget the bond and not take his rage out on Antonio. When it became clear that Shylock was hell-bent on his revenge, Tubal stormed out in disgust.
The Michael Radford film in 2005 did something similar in the trial scene–having Shylock’s neighbors pleading with him to accept the money and forget the bond. Both of these are a nice shorthand for “Judaism isn’t the problem–Shylock himself is.”
As has been stated there were numerous converted Jews particularly in London. It’s also impossible to tell what Shakespeare’s personal beliefs were on almost any subject. The few things we can tell suggest that in his actions in life were well within the compass of your average Elizabethan mindset - in his Will he attempted to leave his goods & property to male members of his family over female ones, he hated paying taxes, and his sonnets may show misogynistic tendencies (if the sonnets are to be taken as auto-biographical).
The “hath not a Jew hands” speech is primarily concerned with what we would today call animalistic, natural senses - pain, sight, death, poison, cooling, warming etc. It is not about conscience, charity or any sort of personal quality of the individual or group.
Im one of those who rails against the attempt at creating Shakespeare in our own image. The Victorians tried to do it, as did the Edwardians, the Nazis, liberals, conservatives, reactionaries, libertarians, feminists, Semites, anti-semites and so on. We all want Shakespeare to confirm our own beliefs.
If you were to put a gun to my head I would say Shakespeare was perhaps less anti-semitic than most of Elizabeth society, but I cannot say he was entirely without anti-semitic prejudice. He was a man of his age as much as he was for all time.
Diverging from the Shakespeare topic; but this brings to mind a a delightful reminiscence I read, by a woman born into the tiny Jewish community in the Irish Republic in the mid-20th century. In her classes at school, she was the single exception on an otherwise 100% Catholic scene. A former schoolfellow said to her – in a completely non-hostile way – “We loved having you as a classmate. It was fascinating – like having a Martian with us in the class”. The lady’s response was along the lines of a slightly bemused, “Well, thank you, I suppose”.
I agree that we shouldn’t judge Shakespeare (or Chaucer for that matter think: “The Prioress’s Tale”) by our moral standards of today. There was no virtue in tolerance of other beliefs. Although there were people who spoke out against the harsh treatment of Jews, those same people still held what we would call anti-Semitic views.
It does not reflect on Shakespeare (or any other author) at all that he depicts most Christians as despising Jews, because that’s accurate. It does reflect on Shakespeare (or any other author) if he himself depicts Jews as despicable.