To Entrap the Wisest by Rene Girard -- Article Summary

Short summary

In his 1986 article "To Entrap the Wisest", René Girard addresses the conflict between the two critical interpretations of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. Some view Shylock as a stereotypical, revenge-seeking mercenary Jew, while others regard him as a sympathetic character who has been wronged. Girard argues that both readings of Shylock are accurate and that, in fact, Shakespeare has intended this duality.

Explicitly, Girard explains, Shylock is the undisputed villain. He practices usury and seeks blood revenge. Every character in the play is opposed to his actions, including the Duke, who is supposed to act as the impartial judge in the trial, and his own daughter, who shamelessly robs him and quits his household. 

Throughout the play, however, there is a subtle undercurrent of rhetoric that establishes Shylock as more benevolent than is immediately apparent. In his "hath not a Jew eyes" speech, Shylock points out that he has learned revenge from the Christians. A closer examination of the behavior of the Christians indeed reveals a discrepancy between their proclaimed values of mercy and charity and their language and actions in the play. Bassanio, for instance, clearly courts Portia for her money. In the trial scene, after Portia has told Shylock he must not draw blood from Antonio, Bassanio is willing to give Shylock the money, but Portia insists on much harsher retribution. The Venetians, he says, appear merciful and charitable but in fact pursue money and revenge. Shylock, on the other hand, appears to be bloodthirsty and greedy whereas his behavior is no different than that of the others.

Girard argues that this dual portrayal of Shylock is no paradox, but is instead indicative of Shakespeare's mastery as a playwright. Overtly, Shylock is established as the clear villain, because ambiguity regarding his villainy simply wouldn't result in effective comedy. On the other hand, Shakespeare manages to incorporate subtle ironies, establishing an undercurrent of ethical and moral controversy. In this way, Shakespeare manages to both evoke stereotypes and undermine them. This allows the play to be successful as a comedy, but also as a more complex work that explores the tension between appearance and reality. 

Long summary

In criticism, Shylock has been portrayed in two ways that seem contradictory. First is that of the stereotypical greedy Jew, which is contrasted with Christian compassion. This image evokes many anti-semitic conventions of the time, which are present in the play even if not dealt with at length overtly. Second is Shylock as sympathetic, which emerges following Shylock's speeches and the behavior of the Christian characters. Shylock exerts interest explicitly and vehemently, but the Christian characters seek revenge and are greedy too, even if they do so more subtly. These are certainly intended by Shakespeare and are not accidents. Bassanio courts Portia in part for her money, and his courtship of her is often spoken of in financial terms. Gratiano plans to bet against Bassanio regarding which of the couples will have the first boy. All of these indicate that Christians too exchange flesh for money and that this behavior is not relegated to Jewish Shylock.

The Venetians in the play appear more benevolent than Shylock. But in fact, their interactions are very financial. Shylock treats his monetary transactions as just that, whereas Antonio regards his loan to Bassanio as an act of charity, although he does expect a return. The relationship between the Venetians and Shylock is paralleled in the casket-choosing lottery. The two foreign princes choose caskets based on their appealing appearance, whereas Bassanio is shrewd enough to not be fooled by appearances. Shylock's and the princes' is crass greed, but Bassanio and Antonio's greed is merely veiled under the pretense of honorable Christian values. The lack of definite terms for loans leads to uncertainty on the borrower's part and opens the opportunity for exploitation on the loaner's part. Antonio is inexplicably sad and this could be related to the discrepancy between Christian values and their execution. In asking for a pound of flesh as a guarantee for a bond, Shylock, in fact, imitates inherently Venetian behavior, only his mercenary motives are overt and he becomes grotesque.

During the play, the Christians emphasize how different they are from Jews but their actions betray an inherent similarity. This tension between difference and similarity recurs in many Shakespeare plays such as The Comedy of Errors and A Midsummer Night's Dream, where characters that ought to be easily distinguished cannot be told apart.

In the language of the play, Shakespeare illustrates the similarity between the characters such as "Which is the merchant and which is the Jew? Antonio and old Shylock both stand forth." The "if we tickle us do we not laugh" speech creates/supports this causal link between the Christian's behavior and Shylock's greedy and villainous behavior.

Shylock alone acts according to clearly defined rules. The Christians are so certain that they act according to rules of charity that they do not see that they don't. They take revenge too but are certain they don't. The tension in the play, then, is caused not by two versions of Shylock but by the tension created in the play between the possibility of difference and the possibility of similarity between Christians and Jews.

The polarized opinions regarding Shylock's character are a real dramatic problem: Shylock tells us everyone is alike, and yet differences are discussed and felt by the characters.

The Christians suck even more in their hypocrisy: at the end of the trial they feel they have been merciful with Shylock, even though they are the ones with all of the wealth and his daughter, and he didn't actually do anybody any harm.

It is debated whether Shakespeare intended for Shylock to be seen as a scapegoat. Revisionists claim that he did, whereas traditionalists maintain that Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock is anti-semitic and he is the scapegoat of his contemporary society. Cooper thinks both are accurate. Shylock was so talented that he was able to leave the interpretation open for the audience, evoking both the stereotypical Jew for the anti-semitic in the audience and dropping ironic hints for those more critical viewers. Shakespeare is a master manipulator. He both generates stereotyping and undermines it.

Shakespeare incorporates only partial realism to create in us relief at the treatment of Shylock. We are told that Antonio would certainly die if a pound of flesh were taken from him, but we are not told that in reality Shylock would not have been allowed to take a pound of flesh at all. Reality is skewed so that Shylock is villanized and the prejudices of the anti-semitic viewer are confirmed. The characters in the play unanimously hate Shylock because it is only thus that villainy is effectively achieved. The trial crowd and audience crowd alike are cheered by Shylock's downfall because it means that Antonio is saved.

The duke should have been an impartial emissary of the law but instead is overtly opposed to Shylock. Under the pretense of mercy, they seek revenge.

The way in which Shylock is created as sympathetic is subtle enough to evade those viewers who are prejudiced. This is the nature of irony. That Shakespeare creates a stereotypical villainous character but also presents him as a scapegoat may appear to be paradoxical, but it is not if we consider that Shakespeare is clever enough to portray both sides of the same issue. This capacity of Shakespeare to embrace and explore controversy is apparent in his language with which he frequently creates tension between appearance and reality, and the manner in which it is easy to be fooled by appearances.

The hypocrisy of the Christians is demonstrated when, after Portia has pointed to the loophole in the contract, Bassanio is willing to give Shylock the money and be done with it but Portia insists on much harsher retribution. Shakespeare is sensitive to injustice but the only appropriate dramatic resolution would be Shylock's scapegoating. At one point Antonio says he is a scapegoat, and this metaphor is clearly displaced so as not to create overt sympathy for shylock but still allows Shakespeare to explore this theme.

This subtle experimentation with different portrayals of people is inherent in Richard III. In both plays, Shakespeare evokes stereotypes in expected ways but incorporates subtle ironies which undermine the defeat of the villain.

This plurality of readings, the capacity to incorporate so many possibilities in one play, serves to make a great play. Shakespeare succeeds in both creating a tension between good and evil in his characterization so that the audience can sympathize or reject the characters, but also create enough ambiguity in raising ethical questions so as to make the play more subtly interesting.

Rene Girard