Possible Causes and Examples

(From Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Marlowe’s Works)

Miriam Webster dictionary defines antisemitism as: “Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group,” but I prefer to use the term “anti-Judaism”.

So what were the causes of anti-Judaism in the classic English literature works?  I believe it was not a racial problem, but rather the different religion and financial issues involved.

Generally, the Europeans at that time believed that all Jewish are rich misers, mischievous merchants, heartless usurers, and greedy ground-hogs who would sell even their own mothers at heartbeat for the best price.

Literature can help us understand social and political influences more. Were Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Marlowe anti-Jewish writers or not? Were their audiences and supporters anti-Jewish? Or maybe both?

Let’s start with Shakespeare whom I think might or might not have been an anti-Jewish, but I believe his audience mostly were. Sadly, that is how things were back then. It all might be the result of the fact that Jewish people were more interested in “saving” money, but that was because they were a minority. They needed to feel safe and secure and maybe ready for any emergency because they were suffering from too many injustices.

Also, Christians were not permitted to take interests, so the Jewish has no competitors in usury. Thus, being “economical” and focusing on “money” was normal for a Jewish person in order to survive. Yet, this made them hated by the majority because they could not benefited from the Jewish money in the society except with high interests rates. Add this to the fact that they did not follow the faith of the majority and kept their own religion, and you get the perfect recipe for hatred that all people around our poor planet still suffer from until now.

It should be understood, I guess, how people end up hating each other based on fatal misunderstandings and misconceptions. Hatred itself is not the problem. It can be, ironically, a “natural” emotion. Yet, the problem is the injustices that might result from it. If you hate me, it is really none of my business; I do not care much, but if you hate me to an extent that makes you hurt me and violate my rights, then I do care, and I have the right to defend myself. Thinking negatively about others happens usually when you judge based on some information you were exposed to and not from authentic sources or real experiences with those “bad people” whom you decided to hate blindly just because they are different.

However, Shakespeare has some sense of justice. He was definitely much smarter, much more sensitive, and more educated on what it means to be a “human”, so he allowed Shylock to at least defend his own people when he said that Jewish are humans too, and like Christians, they have sorrows and joys, duties and rights, and if you push them hard, they can get crazy as well. Fair enough! You do not expect me to hit you then say it is unfair if you hit me back. Do you?

In the Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare allowed Shylock,  the Jewish “evil” character, to defend his people. Maybe the great poet did that because he needed to provide his audience with an explanation of what was thought to be the typical Jewish characteristics, and therefore, a solution to this dilemma. It could be that he also wanted to say: Jewish people are just humans, the more we keep on mistreating them, the more and longer they will hate us and mistreat us back, so if we want to live in peace and exchange benefits with them (and maybe benefit from their money), we should consider treating them better for our own good at least.

I would also say that maybe Shakespeare was not an anti-Jewish, but he could not go against the mainstream notion of the society he was living in and the audience he was targeting. He had to please his audience after all. I found it “brave” of him to let Shylock speak up to defend his people in the end because the “Evil Jewish” idea was the norm. This might be the result of (or maybe the reason why) the Jewish were banished from England in 1290-1292 and were not readmitted to the country until 1655.

Interestingly, I found some readings related to this matter suggesting that since the Jewish were expelled in the period mentioned above, Shakespeare could not be anti-Jewish because basically, there were no Jewish people in England at his time.

Well, I met a lot of cranky extremists and chauvinists and racists from varied places and backgrounds, and I can assure you they all “enjoy themselves” hating almost every living thing that does not look like them or belong to their country or worship the same god. Total mania indeed! I mean, you still can hate me even if you did not know me. In fact, the bitter irony is that there are more chances to find yourself “hating” other ethnic and religious groups, nationalities, languages, colors, or even foods that you are NOT familiar with. So, saying that Shakespeare had nothing against the Jewish because he did not know them for real is not a valid argument. I personally cannot buy it.

I know I do not sound objective here, but I read that play translated into Arabic when I was a teenager, and I can say: I felt the evil in Shylock character was so exaggerated. I was puzzled and a bit unhappy to be honest. I really could not say “Shylock was just one bad dude in a play; doesn’t matter his religion” because if it doesn’t matter then why not giving this very character any other religion? Hemm.. Maybe because Shakespeare believed or, at least, knew that his audience would not approve of seeing all THAT evil in a merchant except if he was a Jewish?! Too bad, but again, my own logical explanation of this is: Shakespeare was just a human, so when I read a novel that says all Americans are mean, greedy, and capitalist devils, I know the writer might have been a long-time victim of too much communism, so I understand:)

Now, let’s go back to Canterbury Tales to read the Prioress’ prologue as an example to clarify my point more. She told us that the Jewish killed a little Christian child because he was singing “O Alma Redemptoris” to glorify Virgin Mary, and then all the Jewish were ordered to be chained, confined, and later, they were drawn by wild horses and hanged. Terrifying!

The plot of this tale might be related to a piece of information I read before and says that some (Or maybe many? Not sure) Christians in the past believed that the Jewish Killed Jesus the Christ, and this might be one of the main reasons why the society at that time believed that Jewish should not be trusted because all of them hated the Christians, and if the Jewish would have been given a chance, they would have killed any Christian. This belief sounds somewhat political to me more than religious.

In this tale as well, the Prioress sets up a sharp contrast between the Jewish who are concerned solely with the power of this life and money, and the Christians whose concerns are about the afterlife. She insists from the start on the simplicity of the Christians and on how vulnerable they are. For example, the Christian school is small, and the children are small or little. The mother is a widow and, as we can guess from the context, poor and weak.

I guess the society hatred of the Jewish at that time took the form of… what? A religious passion or national patriotism? Maybe, but I tend to believe it was a result of some political “agenda” that was planned because some lawmakers, powerful merchants, clergy, and/or powerful people in the government were NOT happy with the Jewish prosperous and dominant financial activities.

This agenda of terryifying people from the Jewish was backed by the support of religious powers because it has been always a succeful game to use or demand the support of the inlufencers in any society in order to program its people to perceive a person or a group as devils. How can I put the blame on our Sweet Shakespeare for this? It was too complicated.

This was periodically renewed by stories such as this one and passed along as a “fact”. That is why it was expressed in such literary characters as Shylock and of course, Barabas of Marlowe in the Jew of Malta who was alienated from Malta’s Christian society although he was an important person, but he was okay with it. He even said he preferred to be hated as long as he was rich, successful, and Jewish (!) instead of being “pitied in a Christian poverty.” Same ol’ idea of: “The Jewish are rich, greedy, hideous, deceptive, and they disgrace the Christians.” What is NOT anti-Jewish here? Nothing I suppose.

And again, let’s not forget that Shakespeare “forced” Shylock to convert to Christianity, didn’t he? Shylock did not “choose” to be Christian. To me, this is the most “painful” part of the whole play, and this, as far as I personally understand, has two meanings: Either Shakespeare wanted to assure a “happy ending” by guaranteeing the old man would be given a seat in the heaven since his audience (or maybe Shakespeare too) believed that only Christians would enter it, and of course, the Jewish would surely be toasted in the hell. Therefore, by “forcing” Shylock to be a Christian Shakespeare was actually being nice and Shylock should be thankful, or maybe Shakespeare was just another “normal” anti-Jewish person, like any other man of his time and place.