Page 161 - William_Shakespeare_-_The_Merchant_of_Venice_191

192
To give, upon his death, unto the Christian Xxx
Who, as of late,° did steal away° his daughter. 193 / recently
And two conditions more:° that for this favour° 194 {Two things provided more} / kindness
195
He presently forswear° all acts of usury.° / renounce {become a Christian} 196
+That he may garner a more Christian kindness.°, / cultivate a Christian kindness
The other, that he do record a gift,
Which leaves, upon his death, all his possession, 197
Unto his son Lorenzo, and his daughter.

—Duke

192. {I am content, so he will let me have | The other half in use, to render it | Upon his death, unto the gentleman}
/ I am content with that, so long as I | Can use the other half in trust, and give it | Upon his death . . .
/ The other half I am hereby content | To use in trust, and then to render it | Upon his death . . .
193. {That lately stole his daughter}
The original line is short, containing three iambs as opposed to five.
/ That, as of late, did steal away his daughter.
194. Antonio has provided a meager ‘favour’ to Shylock: instead of taking half his wealth he is going to have the
money put into a trust (which Antonio manages). This arrangement is set up by Antonio to preserve the principal, so
that Lorenzo (and Jessica) will have some assured wealth when Shylock dies. The benefit afforded to Shylock with
this arrangement—which is unclear—would be if Shylock were the beneficiary of any profit gained from the
management of the trust. Hence, the most favorable arrangement set up by Antonio would be as follows: Shylock
would put up half his money in trust, Antonio would manage the money, Shylock would gain whatever profit was
made, and Lorenzo and Jessica would receive the principal upon Shylock’s death.
195. The original line reads: ‘He presently become a Christian.’ This forced conversion of Shylock is the most
controversial and problematic line in the play. Such a conversion was not found in any of the source stories used by
Shakespeare (such as the plays major source, Il Perecone). In those versions the Jewish money-lender is foiled, the
bond is forfeit, the merchant is saved, and the Jew loses his principal—and he storms out of court in defeat. The
conversion of Shylock is wholly Shakespeare’s addition—and rather than ‘the Jew’ storming out of court, he leaves
an enfeebled and broken man. Some productions use this destructive ending to further present Shylock as a victim,
while some productions chose to delete this controversial line altogether. The primary reason I have deleted it—and
replaced it with a sanction barring Shylock from the practice of usury—is that the line as it now stands is
unnecessary, confusing, and diminishes the character of both Antonio and Shylock. This forced conversion would
likely be interpreted—certainly from a Jewish point of view—as a brutal and vengeful act by Antonio, which was
probably the opposite of his charitable, yet partial, intention. All of Antonio’s actions, thus far, have been
identifiably noble and generous—and displays of Christian charity: this line, however, is not likely to be interpreted
as such. The line also diminishes Shylock who does not argue with such a directive; rather he leaves the stage
broken and stripped of all dignity. Some productions, wishing to show Shylock as a character more sinned against
than sinning, may use this conversion as a way to bring pity to the plight of Shylock and thus try to appease the anti-
Semitic sentiment of the play. Such a course does not allow us the reveal the vengeful and self-defeating psyche of
Shylock’s character—which has nothing whatsoever to do with his Jewishness.
In this rectification, I have made it clear that the whole of Antonio’s dispute with Shylock is founded upon
his usury, not his Jewishness. Thus, Antonio’s forcing Shylock to convert to Christianity obscures and displaces the
real issue, as it is now presented as a difference between Christianity and Judaism (rather than Antonio’s Christian
ideal verses the morally bereft practice of usury). One could assume that Shylock’s obsession with revenge, and the
self-destruction which follows, came about by his usurious mindset (one of greed, deception, and other virtue-less
qualities), or perhaps a character flaw—or an exaggerated reaction to his own feelings of oppression—rather than
anything involving his Jewishness. In fact, he labors to entertains these notions—which defy his inherent Jewish
sense of righteousness—despite his Jewishness, in defiance of his Jewish nature. (In other words, his Jewish soul
causes him to know that his actions are wrong, but his flawed understanding of Judaism, and his injured soul, causes
him to go against his own faith and what he knows to be right. So conflicted is he, that he must resort to extreme
measures in order to keep his illicit course, such as swearing to God that he will kill Antonio.)
In the end, Antonio’s intention with this conversion may be merciful—and may be intended to show his
mercy—at least to a Christian audience. He may be trying to save Shylock’s hell-bound Jewish soul, for Shylock’s
own good—even if he has to do this by force. [See Additional Notes, 4.1.383] [For further discussion on
Shylock’s forced conversion see Appendix.
196. A production that preserves Shylock’s conversion, could have him voice a few lines of protest rather than the
presenting—as in the original—a stark implosion of his character and an uncharacteristically sheepish acceptance of
his fate. [See Additional Notes, 4.1.382]
197. {Here in the court, of all he dies possessed} / Here in the court, which leaves all owned at death / In court, that
all he owns at death will go / Here in the court, all he owns at his death,