Shylock: a Wolfish, Bloody, Inexorable Dog

The interpretation of Shylock I could draw out by reading The Merchant of Venice makes him a mere bloodthirsty villain, a stony adversary, an inhuman wretch, a misbeliever, cut-throat dog, a dog Jew, the most impenetrable cur that ever kept with men.

In the downfall of this 'damn'd, inexorable dog,' whose desires are wolfish, bloody, starved, and ravenous, even though the downfall be brought about by means of a palpable legal quibble, they wholly rejoice, agreeing with Bassanio that to do this great right it is quite justifiable to do a little wrong, if one may thereby curb this cruel devil of his will. And untroubled by any recognition of some right in wrong, of humanity in inhumanity, on the part of Shylock, they give their sympathies unreservedly to his antagonists in the play; they are content with the good Antonio's 'expectoratory method' of manifesting his distaste for this particular member of the Hebrew race; they take unalloyed delight in Jessica's marriage out of her race and religion, offering excuses for "the dry eyes - nay, laughing lips - with which she departs"; they even pass lightly over her robbery of her father's jewels and the exchange of her dead mother's betrothal ring for a monkey, and, protesting that she is daughter neither to his manners nor his blood, with Gratiano they exclaim admiringly, "by my hood, a Gentile and no Jew."

We readers, who thus interpret the play, pay little attention to the touches by which, to others, Shakespeare has humanized the character of Shylock and made his desire for revenge, if not admirable, yet, fierce as it is, comprehensible at least.

Pretty controvertial issue in The Merchant of Venice, huh?

What do you think?

REFERENCES:

Jones, R. and Franklin, T. Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. New York. D. Appleton and Company.
Shakespeare, W. The Merchant of Venice