Relation between jew of malta and merchant of venice Essay

The two novels, Christopher Marlowes The Jew of Malta and William Shakespeargons The Merchant of Venice, the main pillow suits argon Jews, a char symboliseeristic that comes the comparison of the books easier. However, the mood the characters are presented has made the two stories stomach deep and active anti-semitic nonions and messages. Right from the beginning of the play, we plenty see some make headway forbid stereotypes towards Jews. Barabbas is un precariousnessedly envisioned as a man who loves money to an intent that he bets addicted to them.In the opening, we see a merchant, counting his money with passion, and later on plain ab turn out non having made enough by his recent line of products activities. Marlowe straightly defines his whole character and attitude by this portrayal, showing us that Barabbas is vigor more than a greedy Jew. As the story progresses and the while unfolds, the character of Barabbas also unfolds, showing us how he doesnt even swer ve doing unethical and stony things just so that he foundation defend himself from losing money. When his wealth is taken external, after he refuses to give half of it a identical the other Jews did, he unleashes his ruthless effort to regain his wealth.He doesnt hesitate using his daughter to retrieve the gold and jewels he has cabalistic in his house, and it is meaningful to see how he reacts after Abigail throws him the bags of gold out of the window and he embraces them while ignoring his own daughter. Although this is not the besides caseful of how he puts money over more important things, the occurrence that he seems to place money above Abigail, his own daughter, shows his general attitude. But of phase it doesnt stop there, as apart from his avaricious self, he has to carry off his thirst for revenge and execute his plan for retaliation.His plan consists mainly of fetching revenge from the man who took away the most precious thing he has, his wealth. That man of course is Ferneze, the governor of Malta. So, Barabbas decides to kill Fernezes son, Lodowick, that way victorious the revenge he so passionately seeks. Once again he uses his own daughter as decoy, to execute his plan, showing that she has mainly a functional purpose for him. After he completes his plan and kills not only Lodowick but also Mathias, the man that his daughter loves, he feels betrayed by his daughter, as she converts to Christianity.I believe that this is where the insanity and sickness of Barabbas reaches a peak. He is laid to kill his own daughter, because he feels that she disrespects her familys name. The epilogue to this madness comes when lastly Barabbas gets killed by his own evil plots. In the end of the story we thunder mug easily identify the dis in allow characteristics that Barabbas has, which are also strongly attached to the particular that he is Judaic. His elitist nature, his il transparent actions that are all driven by his avarice, and his la ck of sentiments towards other people, make him fit paragonly the stereotypes of Jews that existed at the time. So, all(prenominal) single part of his scornful and insane being, is justified by the fact that he is Judaic, and thus it is natural that he is unstable and inferior to Christians. The close example of anti-Semitic portrayals comes from The Merchant of Venice. The main character, Shylock is portrayed as a greedy Jewish moneylender that is just handle Barabbas, when it comes to hate towards Christians and other people in general. He is also a heartless man, not feeling pity for whatsoeverone, showing a rather sadistic nature.The hate he feels for Antonio is so immense that makes us question to what extent he is veritablely rational at all. Throughout the development of the plot he seems to hold so many negative values that it is out(predicate) not to make a connection between his character and the fact that he is a Jew. Just homogeneous Marlowe, Shakespeare makes t he fact that he is Jewish the root of all evil, as from that genuinely fact all the other negative traits arise. As Bloom mentions in his essay, Shylock is a paseo nightmare, and that should be the only way that anyone portrays him. As we can seefrom his speeches, he clearly has a great love for his wealth and he is not jeopardizing his financial position for any reason. It is not a coincidence that when Jessica runs away with his money, he mostly worries about his wealth and not so much about his daughter. Also, the fact that Jessica had to run away shows that Shylock is far from an ideal father. His speeches also show that he has an extremely negative attitude towards Christians that he justifies as the retaliation for all the antisemitism he has faced. He seems very resentful towards the people that have acted in a bad way towards him and as I mentioned earlier, especially Antonio. So, his actions are mainly driven by his rage and what he thinks as retribution.By the portrayal of Barabbas and Shylock, a logical question approaches. Are the two writers inspired and influenced by racism and the anti-Semitic ideas of their time? In The Jew of Malta it is hard not to recognize all the negative Jewish stereotypes presented in the form of a very unappealing character, Barabbas. Barabbas is not just an unethical and evil man, he is the typical money-loving Jew, with all the smelly characteristics that the racist order of magnitude of the two writers has attributed to Jews.Such a racist society had created all these negative stereotyping for Jews, making them seem like greedy monsters. So I find it impossible that Marlowe as an author hasnt been ab universal and influenced by the stereotypes of his time. That is mainly because in societies that racism towards a specific devotion is so acceptable, there is very high tolerance for reproduction of such ideas and thus such a portrayal would not arise any questions or hate. Such situation reminds me of what happ ens with many fictional evil characters like the devil.I doubt that even a single reader would disapprove if a writer attributed evil characteristics to the devil Although it may seem like an oversimplified example, I believe it captures the very essence of the attitude of people at the time. That is, because the society had condemned Jews of being the cause of everything bad. Such portrayals are very quasi(prenominal) to what Carl Marx has written hundreds of geezerhood later, describing Jews as mere worshipers of money.Although in our days the Jew of Malta can be viewed as a cynical work, I seriously doubt that Marlowe has such an intention, as he characterized it atragedy. It is clear to me that no issuance how anti-Semitism is viewed today after many important events like the Holocaust, the play was influenced by a lot of religious racism and prejudice, and Barabbas characteristics were nothing but the actual portrayal of evil Jews as the English at the time viewed them. Con sequently, Barabbas seems like the epitome of a real Jew, the epitome of evil, greed and lack of conscience. The case is similar in The Merchant of Venice, as Shylock is also portrayed like a perfect example of a Jew, as sort in the Elizabethan times.I personally feel that Shakespeare was also influenced by the general anti-Semitic environment he lived in. Although a verdict of whether he was actually racist in his story is hard to be reached, I find it impossible that a play meant for Christians would not follow the trends of the time. The examples in the story are numerous and clear, straightforwardly proving the position of the Jews. From the fact that the Jews are presented the way they are, up to the point that they are forced to convert to Christianity or give up a part of their wealth, it is evident how negative the Jewish religion was as a characteristic.The fact that it was the same thing for the politics to gain wealth and convert a Jew, show the deep-rooted crime again st this religious group, and the fact that Christians simply wanted to get rid of them as they viewed them like parasites. Such sort of treatment reminds us, newer generations, of the Nazis and their monstrous acts but at the time of the original play, as aforementioned, racism was perfectly fine Nevertheless, Shakespeare does act in a racist way, if we assume that a writer is judged by what he actually writes.I would strongly doubt that Shakespeare intended to make his play anything similar to a parody or a criticism of stereotypes, and I believe that he expresses what he purely thinks. As we have seen from the two plays, the Jewish protagonists, Barabbas and Shylock have a very negative and unethical personality. Their vile and evil acts, paired with their appalling characters, seem to be the actual description of a negative stereotype towards the Jews.Although it may seem ambiguous whether these portrayals are actual and literal or simply ironic, it is clear to me that the answe r is simple. The two authors have no intention at all of criticizing racism and simply portray Jews just as a normal Elizabethan would. So, the two stories, although politically incorrect and really prejudiced, are the progeny of truthful portrayals and honest approaches of the description of characters with a Jewish religion. No matter how wrong and inaccurate, these descriptions were made with complete seriousness by writers living in an environment were such sort of prejudice was rooted from many years ago and continued to bloom.