Othering in Shakespeare the "Othering"

Othering in Shakespeare The "Othering" Process in Shakespeare's the Merchant of Venice In James Shapiro's Shakespeare and the Jews, the author argues that through the process of "othering," whereby national identities are consolidated by contrast to outsiders, English Jews were a catalyst for the consolidation of an English national identity amidst the Reformation. Shakespeare, working in the time of the Reformation, could not ignore the issue, and indeed wide debate remains over whether Shakespeare was himself an anti-Semite, or, as another camp holds, actually a Jew in secret.

The controversy over the portrayal of Jews in Shakespeare has long revolved around The Merchant of Venice, wherein Shylock, a wealthy creditor and a Jew, plays alone -- in defiance of nearly every other character -- the part of the antagonist. Much of the play's drama is concerned with the closing of ranks around Antonio by his Christian brethren, and speaks clearly to the process of othering.

Most telling, though, is the court room scene before the Duke of Venice in act IV, scene I; occurring at the moment of the plot's denouement, the wealth of Venetian forces is suddenly arrayed in defiance of the alien invader, and Shakespeare takes the opportunity to both reinforce the process of othering, as well as critique its rationalizing paradigm. Great good can come out of great evil -- Shakespeare would agree, yet he cannot help but take jabs at the necessity of it.

European Jews became a ready scapegoat for populist fear by virtue of their adherence to non-Christian, non-European doctrine. The system might be termed willful alienation, whereby Jews maintained themselves ideologically separate from the mass of their European compatriots and so, inevitably, became separate. European anti-Semitism might then almost be described as reactionary as well as populist. While the war between Catholics and Protestants raged on, members of both sides could consider themselves ideologically similar as Christian Europeans and find common ground, English ground, in resistance to Judaism.

Perhaps the most lasting effect of the Reformation to the common man was the discovery of this common ground. A number of myths surrounded the popular fear of Jews in the time of the Reformation, and before, and are present to one degree or another in The Merchant of Venice. Primary was the conception of Jews not just as mere outsiders but as something completely alien to the whole of humanity; beyond foreign, Jews seemed exoplanetary -- of a wholly different species.

One popular myth held that "Jewish men menstruated" (Shapiro, p.2) which was a solidification of the idea that the Jew's anatomy itself was different than an Englishman's.

Jews were also seen as cruel and miserly if often rich, "I am famisht in his service; you may tell every finger I have with my ribs," (II.II 104-106) complains Launcelot Gobbo of his Jewish master, and is echoed by Shylock himself when he wishes more for the return of his stolen jewels and currency, than for the safe return of his own daughter (III.I 79-92).

Attributed to Jews primarily was the Christian sin of usury: "In the Rialto you have rated me / About my moneys and my usances," (I.III 106-107) declaims Shylock to Antonio, whereas Christians, Shylock says himself, "lend money for a Christian courtesy" (III.I 45-46). Looming largest in populist fear was the ancient myth about Jewish abduction of Christians -- specifically Christian babies -- for use in ritual murder.

It was also supposed that Jews sought to convert Christians by way of forced circumcision, and herein lies the central metaphor of Shylock's "pound of flesh." All this was held in reference to the belief that deep-seated in the Jewish national psyche was the knowledge that Jesus indeed had been the awaited messiah, that Jews lived not in denial but in rejection. Even if subconscious, this deep-seated rejection was held, popularly, to be both proof and product of the Jews' willful alienation.

And the belief that a Jew might give up his folly, understanding it to be willful, when his skin was on the line is evidenced by the final moments of the trial scene wherein Shylock is obliged to either convert or be executed. In the trial scene Shylock is found amidst the metaphorical perpetration of the forced circumcision of a Christian.

When the bond is sealed (I.III), Shylock is to take from Antonio "an equal pound / Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken / In what part of your body pleaseth me" (I.III, 148-150). The implication is that the pound of flesh will be taken from Antonio's penis, a forced circumcision taken to an extreme degree, whereby the shriven Antonio shall become a Jew.

In IV.I, however, Shylock's pleasures center on a pound of flesh taken from the breast; more telling this, the reference is certainly to the figurative shriving, the "circumcision of the heart" by which, in Biblical terms, a man is held to adhere to the Law of the Pentateuch, to be a practicing Jew (Shapiro, 1996). Around the monstrosity of the act, the notables of Venice as well as Antonio's friends, close ranks to defend Antonio.

That it is a process of consolidation is reinforced by the fact that Antonio's friends, having heard of his plight, travel by disparate means from far away places to be present for his defense. Certainly the process is portrayed as positive in the play, evidenced by the expected happy ending. Shakespeare seems to be applauding the work of othering in forming a social identity.

The essence of Venice and indeed all Christendom is saved by the work of othering, wherein human (read: English) Christians, with human morality, and using human intelligence have overcome the alien (read: Jewish) immorality and blindness.

Yet, it is interesting to consider that, as Shapiro has it, Shakespeare drew the material for The Merchant of Venice from another popular myth in which the roles were quite reversed: "[The story] should be familiar to anyone who has read Shakespeare's play, except, of course, that this time it is the Christian who is intent on cutting the flesh of the Jew" (Shapiro, p.123).

What could Shakespeare mean by this role reversal? Certainly it must be accounted that the final form, with the Jew as antagonist, was more palatable to Shakespeare's Christian audiences. And this palatability is precisely the satirical jab the playwright takes; palatability is the central problem of the question: who is the other? The answer Shakespeare presents: neither is the other.

The Christian was as capable as the Jew of being the evil "other" -- an uncomfortable truth, one that unites Christian and Jew in truly human (do not read: English) moral ambiguity, and, cutting both native and alien from the same cloth, shows the process of othering to be ridiculous. Ridiculous to the learned -- it cannot be supposed that Shakespeare's audience was widely educated enough to be familiar with the original version of the tale -- but necessary to the nation and the common man.

Sometimes from great evil comes great good. And, of course, another question regards the forced conversion of Shylock. Throughout the story, Antonio's forced conversion -- in the person of his metaphorical circumcision of the heart and penis -- is presented as evidence of Shylock's immorality: "This is no answer, thou unfeeling man / To excuse the current of thy cruelty" (IV.I 63-64), spits Bassanio in the trial scene. Yet, by the end of the same scene Antonio is the one forcing conversion on Shylock.

The difference between Antonio and Shylock throughout the tale is couched in terms of morality: Shylock is the immoral Jew, and Antonio the good Christian.