Back to 2004 Contributors
William Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice offers a wealth of possibilities with regard to
interpreting the religious implications of the play. Various reactions range from seeing the play as merely
"the one play of Shakespeare's that can be called a work of Christian apologetics" (Coolidge 243), to Walter
Cohen's composite assessment of its various criticisms:
The play has been variously seen as the unambiguous triumph of good Christians over a bad Jew; as the
deliberately ambiguous triumph of the Christians; as the unintentionally ambiguous, and hence artistically
flawed, triumph of the Christians; as the tragedy of Shylock, the bourgeois hero; and as a sweeping attack
on Christians and Jews alike. (767)
Cohen concludes from all of these points of view that "perhaps no other Shakespearean comedy at all, has
excited comparable controversy" (767). Shakespeare in fact brings such controversial issues of faith center
stage as they are embedded throughout the five acts of this play wherein the ideologies of Christianity and
Judaism butt heads in a portrayal of interfaith rivalry.
The question of Shakespeare's intentions with regard to depictions of anti-Semitism and Christianity in this
play has been the subject of debate for centuries and is not likely to be resolved to the complete satisfaction
of serious students of this play. Gary Rosenshield, comparing this play with Christopher Marlowe's
The Jew of Malta, believes that Shakespeare's purpose was to "emphasize the moral and spiritual
chasm between Jewish and Christian worlds," by showing Jewish "revenge and usurious capital on one hand
and Christian charity and merchant 'venture' on the other" (34). Perhaps ironically, as the play reveals
Shylock's humanity in response to Antonio's mistreatment of him, the "moral and spiritual chasm" that
Rosenshield identifies may be downplayed. Moreover, Rosenshield's assessment that Shakespeare is somehow
idealizing the Christian merchant Antonio seems over simplified, discounting any possibility of depth in Antonio's
flawed and frail character, which, as it portrays Christianity, provides a certain counterbalance to the notion of
his heroic Christian sacrifice. It is from the perspective of Antonio's character that there is room to explore the
play for its representations of Christianity in hopes of revealing attitudes held by the Elizabethan community and
perhaps Shakespeare himself toward Christianity, Christians, and their proper role in the community. While the
titular merchant Antonio seems to offer a wealth of possible Biblical allegories, he can be accurately seen as a
depiction of Biblical Christian weakness in his flawed humanness, as his faulty conduct precludes his heroism
and, in fact, serves to damage the image of Christianity. Antonio's actions furthermore give reason to question
the attitudes held by Shakespeare's Christian Elizabethan audience, and the merchant's own hypocrisy ironically
aligns him more closely with New Testament Jews than with Christ Himself. Finally, a pragmatic look at
Antonio's sacrifice for Bassanio finds it to be a less than noble action, and we are led to see how Antonio's
behavior can be more closely linked to his money than to his faith.
The possibilities for analyzing Biblical representations in the characterization of Antonio are incredibly rich.
For some, he is an allegory for the Biblical notion of sacrifice, as Norman H. Holland suggests: "Antonio is in
effect the sacrificial lamb of a vengeful father, Shylock the Jew, almost the hard Jehovah of the Old Testament"
(106). In Holland's picture, Antonio is likened to a helpless lamb, slaughtered to appease the wrath of Shylock,
whom Holland then equates with God. Holland also compares Antonio to Christ Himself: "Antonio likewise
gives or, at least, lends his body for Bassannio" (106). The fundamental weakness in both of these allegories is
that Antonio's character is marred by hatredÐunlike the lamb (chosen for its purity), and unlike Christ (declared
sinless in the New Testament). A better analysis of Antonio is found by looking at his personal weakness,
making him an appropriate model of some Christian characteristics found in the New Testament. Consider
Antonio's resignation of his will to live both after the bond has come due and he has unsuccessfully pleaded
with Shylock to hear his case as he says, "These griefs and losses have so bated me / That I shall hardly spare
a pound of flesh" (3.3.35-36). At this point in the play, Antonio has become completely helpless in his own
cause and is ready to give up. It is exactly because of his utter weakness and his inability to do anything to save
himself that Antonio needs to be saved, echoing the biblical doctrine of the need for salvation by grace. Note
also the biblical response to human weakness and frailty as, in his second epistle to the church at Corinth, the
apostle Paul wrote of his own personal weakness: "and He has said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for
power is perfected in weakness.' Most gladly, therefore I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power
of Christ may dwell in me" (New American Standard Bible. 2 Cor. 12.9). The Christian doctrine that an
acknowledgement of human weakness is necessary in order for divine power to operate fully is established in the
helplessness of Antonio, whose frailty diminishes any heroic qualities he otherwise might have had, and casts him
in the Biblical mold of the helpless condemned soul in need of salvation. AntonioÕs character can be read positively
by noting how he is heralded by his friends in the play for his kindness and for his concern for Bassanio and other
Christians, having used his financial means on several occasions to bail them out of Shylock's usurious hands.
However, even as his friends celebrate his Christian love and charity, and though the penalty of his bond calls for
a pound of his flesh, Antonio's fundamental flaws of prejudice and hatred toward Shylock weaken this allegory and
soften its verity. Moreover, it is Antonio's hateful behavior that actually forces Shylock to reciprocate with his
own brand of hatred directed not only toward Antonio, but toward all other Christians as well.
Due to the provocative nature of Antonio's hateful attitude and actions toward Shylock, there is no way to see his
character as truly heroic, nor Shylock's character as completely villainous from any point of view--most certainly
not from a well reasoned Christian perspective. As Shylock, who is considering making a loan to Antonio's friend
Bassanio on the basis of Antonio's credit, recounts his grievances against Antonio. It reminds Antonio that he had
called Shylock a "misbeliever, cutthroat dog, / And spet upon my Jewish gaberdine" (1.3.121-122). Antonio, somewhat
surprisingly, at least from a twenty-first century point of view, declares in response, "I am as like to call thee so
again, / To spet on thee again, to spurn thee, too" (1.3.140-141). D.A. Traversi couples this declaration with the
balance of Antonio's statement in lines 142 through 147 of the same scene, in which Antonio encourages Shylock
to lend the money as "to thine enemy" (1.3.145). Traversi then says that Antonio "is in effect inviting the fate which
will in due course threaten to undo him" (186). By provoking Shylock so, it is easily argued that Antonio is as
culpable as Shylock in his obligation under the bond since he exacerbates Shylock's enmity of his own accord. Not
only is Antonio complicit in his own dour circumstances, his actions have the ripple effect of degrading the reputation of
Christianity.
There can also be no denying that Antonio's hatred of Shylock is a poor advertisement for Christian love, and the
scandal would create a major image problem by twenty-first-century standards. Heinrich Heine points to the message
that Antonio's actions send about the nature of Christian love as he responds sarcastically to Antonio's compulsion to
continue his mistreatment of Shylock (1.3.140-141), saying, "Here we have an example of Christian love! Christianity
would have been satirized had Shakespeare typified it by Shylock's enemies" (4: 200). There is no reason given by
Antonio for his decision to hate Shylock, and the only reason that can be inferred is the one given by Shylock himself:
"and whatÕs his reason? I am a Jew" (3.1.57). For such deliberate and unprovoked hatred there can be no moral
justification. Heine continues with his evaluation of Antonio: "The bankrupt Antonio is a weak-spirited mortal without
energy, without power to hate, and therefore without power to love, a dull worm" (4: 200). AntonioÕs actions do in
fact affect his image, and they furthermore mitigate, or at least water down, the overly simple argument that this play
is a glorification of Christianity and Christian morals. Moreover, Antonio's behavior prevents him from personally
gaining any moral high ground throughout the balance of the play since any virtue he seems to have as a result of his
personal love and sacrifice for Bassanio must be greatly discounted in light of his hypocritical sin of hatred.
In an analysis of Antonio's Christian character, one issue to be examined is how his actions, abominable by twenty-first
-century standards, reflect Elizabethan attitudes about Christianity and Judaism. As a component of the play's emphasis
on struggles of faith, Antonio very likely reflects Elizabethan notions of the Christian ideal; however, he may also
expose a discrepancy between the Biblical standard of Christian love and these same ideals. Furthermore, having already
seen how Antonio's character is significant in its potential for Christian allegory and how it fulfills some Biblical
expectations of Christians and their flaws, the question of its relevance to Shakespeare's own community should be
addressed. Therefore, qualifying the Elizabethans' awareness of the playÕs Christian depictions is foundational to
understanding the play as it relates to Shakespeare's Elizabethan world. According to Barbara K. Lewalski, "the
religious significances dealt with in the play are basic to all the major Christian traditions and were available to any
Elizabethan through countless sermons, biblical commentaries, and scripture annotations" (328). The playgoers in
Shakespeare's England were evidently well enough versed in common Christian teachings that they would have easily
recognized the allegories and symbols incorporated into the play. Moreover, given the obvious religious implications
surrounding his character, it is only logical to infer that the characterization of Antonio represents, at least in part, the
perception of Christian behavior that Shakespeare had derived from his studies of Christianity and his assessment of
Christian actions in the community around him.
It seems to be a commonly held opinion that, considered in light of Elizabethan moral standards, Antonio's treatment of
Shylock would have been perfectly upright. However, as wrong as Antonio's behavior toward Shylock seems in the
twenty-first century, it would have had to be a violation of any well-versed Christian conscience even in Shakespeare's
England due to the presumably common knowledge of Christ's mandate in the Sermon on the Mount for Christians to,
"love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you" (New American Standard Bible. Matt. 5.44). Shakespeare
quite obviously has established the titular merchant as a Christian who conveniently ignores fundamental tenets of his
faith. Moreover, neither Shakespeare nor his Elizabethan audiences could have easily brushed aside this flaw in Antonio's
character without seeing its hypocrisy on some level, whether consciously or subconsciously. This point is reinforced as
Lewalski notes the complication of the Shylock-Antonio analysis as she discusses Elizabethan perceptions of Shylock's complaint in light of the moral incongruity between Antonio's behavior and Christ's directive in the Sermon on the Mount.
She says,
Recollection of [Christ's] demand should go far to resolve the question as to whether an Elizabethan audience
would regard Shylock's grievances as genuine: presumably an audience which could perceive the Biblical
standard operating throughout the play would see its relevance here. (330)
We may then conclude, if Lewalski is correct, that if an Elizabethan audience could in fact easily ignore this
inconsistency characterized in Antonio, it would point us to a hypocrisy in the very Elizabethan Christian community
to which Shakespeare himself belonged. Whether or not Elizabethans could look past this discrepancy without
wincing as it hit home may be unanswerable (in much the same way that we question how America's founders
managed to promote liberty and independence while maintaining a system of slavery). If so, the reflection of
hypocrisy on that particular community would be especially telling in retrospect. Moreover, although Shakespeare's
play promotes Antonio's sacrifice for Bassanio as a noble gesture on the part of a professed Christian, the ironic
characterization of Antonio demonstrates the Bard's recognition of hypocrisy in those who claim rightness in the
name of Christ but proceed to behave in a manner contrary to Christ's personal directives.
The hypocritical way in which Antonio treats Shylock further serves to point us unexpectedly back to the Jews
of the New Testament. Antonio's behavior, in fact, situates him much closer to the Jews than it does to Christ
or His disciples. It was the Jewish religious leaders, the Pharisees, who received the sharpest rebukes from
Christ, as He lambasted them for their behavior: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are
like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones
and all uncleanness" (New American Standard Bible. Matt. 23.27). With such a denunciation to consider, the
very notion of hypocrisy should be utterly contemptible to Christians. The significance of Antonio's treatment
of Shylock in light of Christ's words, though, goes beyond the hypocritical behavior itself, as Antonio's actions
paint a portrait of him very much in the likeness of the Jews in their treatment of Christ Himself. As has been
noted, Antonio admits to spitting on Shylock and degrading him for no other reason than that he is a Jew. This
particularly echoes the way the Jews behaved toward Christ at the trial which preceded His crucifixion: "Then
they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him" (Matt. 26.67). Oddly enough, in
this sense, it is Shylock, and not Antonio who can relate more closely to the experience of Christ, having been
mistreated by Antonio for no other reason than for who he is. According to William Hazlitt, for Antonio to later
entreat Shylock for mercy after having treated him in such a manner "is the rankest hypocrisy, or the blindest
prejudice" (4: 196). If one were looking to support Antonio's behavior, the case might be made that Antonio's
actions are justifiable payback to the Jews for their treatment of Christ. This argument, however, is easily negated
by the fact that the behavior itself is a violation of Christ's previously stated directives in His Sermon on the Mount.
A more reasonable interpretation is that Antonio's actions emphasize that hatred and hypocrisy are not sins
reserved for Jews, but rather are fundamental flaws of humanity. In any case, the outcome of Antonio's actions
is a complication of the plot on both a moral and an intellectual level, as even the most dogmatic pro-Christian
interpretation of the play must come to terms with the unreasonableness of Antonio's anti-Semitic and hardly
Christ-like behavior. From a critical standpoint, one product of Antonio's behavior is that it limits the effectiveness
of likening his sacrifice for Bassanio with that of the crucified Christ, who is declared by the New Testament to
be sinless.
While many see his sacrifice for Bassanio as noble and heroic, in a more practical sense, Antonio's commitment
to sacrifice a pound of his own flesh in order to enable his friend's courtship of the wealthy young woman Portia
actually reveals more of foolishness than it does of brotherly love. While the means of risking his life may sound
courageous, the end he hopes to achieve is a ridiculous reason to put one's life on the line. If Bassanio's life were
actually in danger, Antonio's risk would be validated, and would carry much more weight than it can in this
circumstance. In fact, Antonio's guarantee of the bond is more akin to gambling than to martyrdom, as he tells
Bassanio
Why, fear not, man, I will not forfeit [my life]!
Within these two monthsÐthatÕs a month before
The bond expires--I do expect return
Of thrice three times the value of this bond. (1.3.168-171)
Antonio seems to think his odds are pretty good. He has, in fact, played all of his chips on a high-percentage
bet that his merchant ships at sea will all come in before the bond is due, giving him the money to repay Shylock's
loan. For Antonio, the potential consequences are not even an issue at this point. According to Denton J. Snider,
"[Antonio] probably could not think, with his consciousness, that even the Jew would proceed to such measures
[as taking the pound of flesh]" (4: 217). Snider's viewpoint then regards Antonio as na•ve concerning Shylock's
determination to fulfill the bond. In any case, Antonio does not commit himself to the bond without evidently
feeling that his chances of actually paying a pound of flesh are miniscule. In this way then, Antonio is not heroic,
and he certainly is no savior in the Christian sense of the word because he simply never expects to have to pay the
bond.
When it later appears that his ships will fail to arrive, and as Shylock calls the loan, the now powerless Antonio is
obligated to pay with a pound of his flesh. Snider believes that Antonio deserves mercy from Shylock, yet he says
that Antonio's fate is ultimately of his own doing: "He has himself reared the avenger, it is his own deed coming
back to him" (217). While it is true that Antonio has himself to blame for his circumstances, he is, nonetheless,
stoic and resigned as he bemoans his fate. Recall again Antonio's previously noted despair in his circumstances:
"These griefs and losses have so bated me / That I shall hardly spare a pound of flesh" (3.3.35-36). As pitiable
as Antonio is in his state of impending doom, it is noteworthy that his sense of grief, even at this point of staring
death in the face, seems to be anchored in his "losses," that is, the loss of his financial well being. Thus his misery
is primarily the result of his belief that his ships, along with his fortune, are lost. Incapable at this point of arguing
for his own deliverance in the Duke's court of law, Antonio really has no other choice but to give up his life
"willingly" in order to fulfill his obligation under the bond to Shylock. Unable to rely on the influence of money,
at the end of his means with little hope for deliverance, Antonio is finally saved from certain death, not by money,
but through the shrewd dealings of Portia, the most authoritative and powerful figure in the play. In the end it is
Portia, not Antonio, who emerges from the play as the champion over Shylock's bitter hatred, and she accomplishes
this feat by reasoning through the minutiae of Venetian legalese. Rosenshield believes that Portia, in effect, has
foiled AntonioÕs plan with her victory:
Antonio had hoped with his sacrificial death to have bonded Bassanio to him for life. By saving his life,
Portia simultaneously deprives him of his most strategic weapon and makes him indebted to her. Further,
Bassanio, now a rich landowning aristocrat, will hardly be in need of his friend's services again. (48)
While Rosenshield's argument makes Antonio seem highly irrational in his eagerness to die in order to keep
Bassanio's love, it helps to make the case that Antonio's power, influence and sense of security, particularly
with regard to his friendship with Bassanio, are based more in his money than in his Christian faith. In fact,
there seems to be a certain co-dependent aspect to this relationship that has kept Bassanio rolling in money
and made Antonio to feel loved. This seems to be so important to Antonio that he would go to great lengths
to preserve the status quo of their friendship, even to the degree that his very life is imperiled.
While it is clearly possible to examine Antonio's actions on a number of levels, critical interpretation of his
behavior and its meaning within the play are sure to be as varied as our individual religious beliefs or unbelief.
Antonio's flaws, weaknesses, and questionable motives help to define and illustrate his humanness and lend
verisimilitude to his representation of the Christian community as a whole. The characterization of Antonio
should then prompt us to view the issues of faith at work in the play more evenhandedly, so as not to reduce
the play's meaning to that of simple Christian apologetics, even in light of Shylock's forced conversion at the
end of the play. Consider that Shakespeare could have given us an Antonio whose actions did not serve as a
catalyst for Shylock's hatred toward him. Had this been the case, Shylock would have been the play's indisputable
villain and Antonio would have been far less lifelike. Instead, as Rosenshield says, we must argue "not only for
a less exemplary Antonio, but a more complicated and conflicted one as well, an Antonio who is closer to Shylock,
in some ways, than he would care to imagine" (37). Antonio gives this play the complication of a religious strife
perpetuated by both sides. Viewed from this perspective, the play's conflicts become richer and more meaningful
as they come to life for us as readers and playgoers who are forced to reckon with our own sense of morality as
we encounter The Merchant of Venice. Moreover, each of us goes to trial alongside Antonio, not only
judging the actions of the play's characters, but, hopefully, examining our own reactions to this play's portrayal
of the very important issues of faith, justice, and mercy. Finally, by looking at our own attitudes objectively, we
can hope to avoid Antonio's hypocritical mistakes, and we can learn how the lessons in this play can be applied
to issues of faith in our own communities.
Works Cited
Cohen, Walter. "The Merchant of Venice and the Possibilities of Historical Criticism."
ELH 49.4 (1982): 765-789.
Coolidge, John S. "Law and Love in The Merchant of Venice." Shakespeare Quarterly
27.3 (1976): 243-263.
Hazlitt, William. "The Merchant of Venice." Shakespearean Criticism. 70 vols. Ed by Mark
Scott. Detroit, MI: Gale Research, 1987. 195-196.
Heine, Heinrich. "Jessica." Shakespearean Criticism. 70 vols. Ed by Mark Scott. Detroit, MI:
Gale Research, 1987. 200-201.
Holland, Norman N. The Shakespearean Imagination. New York: Macmillan, 1964.
Lewalski, Barbara K. "Biblical Allusion and Allegory in The Merchant of Venice."
Shakespeare Quarterly 13.3 (1962): 327 - 343.
New American Standard Bible. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Rosenshield, Gary. "Deconstructing the Christian Merchant: Antonio and The Merchant
of Venice." Shofar 20.2 (2002): 28 -51.
Scott, Mark W. Ed. Shakespearean Criticism. 70 vols. Detroit, MI: Gale Research, 1987.
---. "Portia." Shakespearean Criticism. 70 vols. Ed by Mark Scott. Detroit, MI:
Gale Research, 1987. 200-201.
Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice. New Folger Library edition. Eds.
Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine. New York: Pocket Books, 1992.
Shakespearean Criticism. 70 vols. Ed by Mark Scott. Detroit, MI: Gale Research, 1987.
Snider, Denton J. "Merchant of Venice." Shakespearean Criticism. 70 vols. Ed by Mark Scott.
Detroit, MI: Gale Research, 1987. 215-221.
Traversi, D.A. An Approach to Shakespeare. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1956.
Copyright © 2005 by Calaveras Station and the CSUS English Department.