Harpagon exclaims to his servant: "Ah, wretch, you are eating up all my wealth," and Shylock says the same thing to Launcelot. Harpagon"s, "It is out of Christian charity that he covets my money," is not unlike the reproach of Shylock, "He was wont to lend out money for a Christian courtesy!" And "justice, impudent rascal, will soon give me satisfaction!"
is with Shylock "the Duke shall grant me justice!" While if we compare the words which Moliere puts into the mouths of those who revile the miser, they suggest the taunts thrown at Shylock. "I tell you frankly that you are the laughing-stock of everybody, and that nothing delights people more than to make game of you"; has its equivalent in the speech "Why, all the boys in Venice follow him," etc. And "never does anyone mention you, but under the name of Jew and usurer," tallies with Launcelot"s "My master is a very Jew." Other instances might be quoted.
Of course it cannot be overlooked that Shakespeare has given Shylock one speech of undoubted power which silences all his opponents. For while the Christians are unconscious of any wrongdoing on their side towards the Jew, Shylock complains loudly and bitterly of the indignities thrust upon him by the Christians, and in that often-quoted speech beginning "Hath not a Jew eyes" he complains with an insistence which certainly claims consideration. Now in so far as Shylock resents the want of tolerance shown him by the Christians, he is in the right and Shakespeare is with him; but when he tries to justify his method of retaliation and schemes to take Antonio"s life, not simply in order to revenge the indignities thrust upon him, but also that he may put more money into his purse, Shylock is in the wrong and Shakespeare is against him. For it is obvious that Shylock does not seek the lives of Gratiano, Solanio, or Salarino, the men who called him the "dog Jew," or the life of the man who ran away with his daughter, but of the merchant who lends out money gratis, who helps the unfortunate debtors, and who exercises generosity and charity. Whatever blame attaches to the Christians on the score of intolerance, Antonio is the least offender, except in so far as it touches Shylock"s pocket. And when Shylock the usurer a.s.serts that a Christian is no better than a Jew, he forgets that Christianity, in its original conception and purpose, forbade the individual to prey on his fellow-creatures; and this is the Christianity which Antonio practises.
Finally it is the intention of the comedy, as Shakespeare has designed it, to ill.u.s.trate the consequence of a too rigid adherence to the letter of the law. The terms of the bond to which Shylock clings so tenaciously, and for which he demands unquestioning obedience, ultimately endanger his own life and with it the whole of his property. Shylock falls a victim to his own plot in the same way that Barabas tumbles into his own burning caldron; but the Christians spare the Jew"s life and half his wealth is restored to him, and restored to him by Antonio "the bankrupt," who is still himself greatly in need of money. That Shylock must in return for this mercy deny his faith is not in the eyes of the Christian a punishment or even an act of malice, but a means of salvation.
The basis, then, of Shakespeare"s comedy, it is contended, is a romantic story of love and adventure. It shows us a lovable and high-minded heroine, her adventurous and fervent lover, and his unselfish friend, together with their merry companions and sweethearts. And into this happy throng, for the purpose of having a villain, the dramatist thrusts the morose and malicious usurer, who is intended to be laughed at and defeated, not primarily because he is a Jew, but because he is a curmudgeon; thus the prodigal defeats the miser.
If we look more closely into the two plays of Marlowe and Shakespeare, and compare not only Barabas with Shylock, but also Marlowe"s Christians with those of Shakespeare, we find a dissimilarity in the portraiture of the Christians so marked that it is impossible to ignore the idea that Shakespeare, perhaps, wished to protest not against Marlowe"s "inhuman Jew," but against his pagan Christians. The variance, in fact, is too striking to be accidental, as the following table will show:
THE FAMOUS TRAGEDY OF THE THE MOST EXCELLENT RICH JEW OF MALTA. HISTORY OF THE MERCHANT OF VENICE.
The play is named after the The play is named after the Jew who owns the argosies. Christian who owns the argosies.
The Christians take forcible The Christians ask a loan of possession of all the Jew"s the Jew on business terms.
wealth.
The Jew upbraids the Christians The Christian upbraids the for quoting Scripture to Jew for quoting Scripture to defend their roguery. defend his roguery.
The Christians break faith A Christian Court upholds with the Turks, and also with the Jew"s claim to his bond.
the Jew.
The Jew"s daughter Abigail Jessica gives away her father"s rescues her father"s money money to the Christians.
from the Christians.
The Jew"s servant helps his Launcelot leaves his master master to cheat the Christians. to join the Christians.
Two Christians try to cajole Lorenzo elopes with Jessica, the Jew of his daughter, and die and finally inherits the Jew"s victims to his treachery. wealth.
Abigail becomes a Christian Jessica becomes a Christian and is poisoned by her father. and is happy ever after.
The Jew is the means of Portia saves the Christian saving the Christians from the from the Jew.
Turks.
The Christians are accessory The Christians spare the to the Jew"s death, which is an Jew"s life, which is an act of act of treachery on their part. mercy on their part.
It might be objected that the interval of seven years between the production of the two plays renders it improbable that Shakespeare would have intentionally contrasted his play with Marlowe"s. But the popularity of "The Jew of Malta" exceeded that of any other contemporary play.
Although it was not printed till 1604, it was produced in 1588, and references to it in contemporary plays continue to be found until 1609.
Owing, besides, to Alleyne"s extraordinary success as Barabas, the play continued to be acted at intervals until 1594, between which date and 1598 Shakespeare had written his own comedy. The setting-off, too, of play against play was a common practice, especially among the early Elizabethan dramatists, and Greene did not hesitate to avail himself of the success of Marlowe"s "Doctor Faustus" to write his "Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay."
Now in so far as "The Jew of Malta" makes fun of friars and nuns, it would be considered legitimate amus.e.m.e.nt by a Protestant audience. We have a similar record on the French stage of revolutionary times when as M.
Fleury remarks: "All the convents in France were shown up at the theatres, and the surest mode of drawing money to the treasury was to raise a laugh at the expense of the Veil." But Marlowe goes further than this. He attacks Christianity wantonly and aggressively, not only by portraying Barabas"s contempt for the Christians, but by making the Christians contemptible in themselves, and wanting in all those virtues which were upheld in the newly accessible Gospels. They are without honour and chivalry or any sense of justice or loyalty. They are false and treacherous to Jew and Turk alike, and Barabas can well say of them:
"For I can see no fruits in all their faith, But malice, falsehood, and excessive pride, Which methinks fits not their profession."
Further, the Christians take by force the Jew"s money to pay the city"s tribute to the Turks, which after all is not paid, the Christians keeping the money for themselves. It is but the bare truth that Barabas states when he mutters:
"Who, of mere charity and Christian truth, To bring me to religious purity, And as it were in catechising sort, To make me mindful of my mortal sins, Against my will, and whether I would or no, Seized all I had, and thrust me out o" doors."
And Marlowe also makes Barabas say, indignant at the Christians"
hypocrisy:
"Is theft the ground of your religion?
What, bring you scripture to confirm your wrongs?
Preach me not out of my possessions."
Scepticism is rampant throughout "The Jew of Malta," and Marlowe flaunts his opinions before a theatre full of Christians. Not that it is contended that Marlowe was himself an atheist, but in "The Jew of Malta" he seems, perhaps out of a spirit of retaliation for the wanton attacks made upon him, to be bent on exposing to ridicule the upholders of the orthodox faith. In Marlowe"s "Faustus" the good angel, the aged pilgrim, and the final repentance satisfy the religious conscience, but his later play has no such compensations. The boast of Barabas that, "some Jews are wicked as _all_ Christians are," pa.s.ses unchallenged.
Now it is unlikely that any member of Elizabeth"s Court, any Protestant n.o.bleman who was responsible for upholding the reformed faith, much less that any Catholic, could have been present at the performance of this play without protesting against the poet"s att.i.tude towards Christianity. Nor is it probable that the Lord Chamberlain"s servants would overlook Marlowe"s taunts at the national religion spoken from the citizens"
playhouse. So that the poet-player whose sonnets were being circulated in the houses of the n.o.bility, whose patron was the Earl of Southampton, the friend of Ess.e.x, and who had begun to be talked about at Court, might with advantage to himself expose the other side of the picture, and defend the abused Christians.
It remained then for Shakespeare to show that Christians, if they hated the infidel, were not in themselves contemptible. In addition to her many fascinations of mind and person, Portia possesses in an eminent degree a sense of honour and a love of mercy. The obligations imposed upon her by her father are religiously observed. Even when her lover is choosing the caskets, and a glance would have put him out of his misery, her att.i.tude towards him is uncompromising. Later on she upholds the Jew"s plea for justice, while at the same time she urges the more divine attribute of mercy.
Where Shakespeare, however, differs from Marlowe most strikingly is in the character of the Merchant after whom the comedy is named. Barabas has boasted that--
"he from whom my most advantage comes Shall be my friend.
This is the life we Jews are used to lead."
Then he navely adds:
"And reason, too, for Christians do the like."
Now the dearest object of affection in the world for Antonio is Ba.s.sanio, and it is the knowledge that his beloved friend has a rival for his love in Portia, which causes Antonio"s sadness; yet he not only gives up his companion ungrudgingly to the enjoyment of greater happiness, but provides him with the necessary means; and for this purpose he signs a perilous bond with his bitterest foe. Of necessity he dislikes Shylock, whose debtors he has so often saved from ruin. With Jessica"s flight he had nothing to do. He certainly never sanctioned it. Moreover, when misfortune comes upon him he has no desire to escape from the penalty of the bond, and when he himself is in poverty he saves from a similar calamity a man who hates him. In face of these facts it is difficult to understand why Heine should consider Antonio unworthy to tie Shylock"s shoelaces!
Again, Ba.s.sanio is often called a fortune-hunter, but without justification. He knew that he enjoyed the esteem and affection of Portia while her father was yet alive. The "speechless messages" of her eyes invited his return to Belmont. On his arrival he finds that she can no longer dispose of herself, and yet, unlike most of the other suitors, he does not on that account withdraw: he wins her because he loves her and knows that love is worth more than gold or silver. When he hears of Antonio"s danger he rushes to his friend"s side to offer his own life to save him. It is to be noticed also that Portia"s esteem for Antonio"s openly proclaimed virtues is drawn from a comparison with those of Ba.s.sanio. They are by no means contemptible.
Jessica, again, who must be counted among the Christians, finds life at home too hopelessly rigid to be longer endured. There is not a word in the text to justify the belief that her father loves her, apart from his own needs. She is expected to guard his gold and silver and to listen to his discussions with Tubal and Chus about the hated Antonio and his bond. So the girl must look after herself if she is to enjoy happiness in the future. Lorenzo knows that to allow Jessica to forsake her father and to rob him is a sin towards Heaven. He prays for punishment to be withheld because she has married a Christian, and, to his credit, it must be acknowledged that he is unconscious of any hypocrisy. As for the "braggart" Gratiano and the remaining Christians, we tolerate them because they love Antonio, the man who of all others most deserves our respect.
Perhaps as Christians they insist too much on their moral superiority, but this is natural after Marlowe"s play had been seen on the stage.
Of course, there are critics who will hold that Marlowe"s Christians, in some respects, are more life-like than Shakespeare"s. Perhaps if "The Merchant of Venice" had been written while Marlowe was alive, he would have challenged Shakespeare to uphold that in matters of conduct where money interests were involved there was any marked distinction between the morals of the believer and the unbeliever. Marlowe might have contended that out of one hundred Christians ninety-nine would act as his Governor of Malta had done, though he was a Knight of St. John. It might not be impossible for a Christian to persuade himself that money taken forcibly from the infidel Jew, as a tribute, could justly be withheld from the infidel Turk to whom it was due, and that it was folly to hesitate in cutting the cord that would let the infidel Jew into the burning cauldron, instead of the infidel Turk for whom it was designed, especially when one hundred thousand pounds of the citizens" money would in that way be saved.
As a mere worldly truism the words that Barabas utters, when his daughter changes her faith, have a deeper significance than the "n.o.ble plat.i.tudes"
of Lorenzo and Jessica:
"She that varies from me in belief, Gives great presumption that she loves me not; Or loving, does mislike of something done."
Shakespeare, probably, would have answered Marlowe"s objection with the a.s.surance that there still remained the odd Christian out of every hundred to be reckoned with, and that he himself was more interested in showing the world what men ought to be like than what they actually were. But if Shakespeare preferred to live outside the walls of reality, he did so only in imagination, for he must have had a very practical knowledge of men"s dealings with each other. No doubt our great dramatist was not eager to break with conventions or to imitate Marlowe by saying unpalatable truths about the Christians at a time when he himself was still seeking the favour of Elizabeth"s Court.
THE AUTHORS OF "KING HENRY THE EIGHTH."[8]
The play of "Henry VIII." first appeared in print in 1623, seven years after Shakespeare"s death. It was published in the first collected edition of the poet"s dramas, and so became known to the world as his play. For two centuries the genuineness of the drama was not called in question. The earliest commentators never expressed misgivings on the subject, nor is there evidence to show that Shakespeare"s contemporaries disputed the authorship. Choice extracts from the play have appeared in collections of poetry, which compare favourably with selections from "Hamlet" or "Macbeth." Wolsey"s famous soliloquy is universally thought to be Shakespeare"s reflections on the vicissitudes of life. At the British Museum will be found versions of the play in French, German, Italian, and even one in Greek. The drama, moreover, is familiar to the playgoer, while eminent actors and actresses, with no intention of impersonating the creations of an inferior dramatist, have won distinction in the characters of the Cardinal and of Queen Katharine. Yet, in the face of evidence that is apparently convincing, it may be safely a.s.sumed that "Henry VIII." is not Shakespeare"s play in the sense in which we speak of "Hamlet" or "Macbeth" as being his. Indeed, the statement has been put forth that not one line of the play was written by its reputed author.
Now it is always an ungrateful task to defend an argument which no one cares to accept, and the admirers of those scenes which have made actors and actresses famous, and of those speeches which adorn our books of extracts, are still too numerous and too enthusiastic to desire any other dramatist than Shakespeare to be the author of them. Possession is nine points of the law, and while tradition has the prior claim, public opinion will not readily endorse the verdict of a handful of literary sceptics. On the other hand, it must be conceded that even to challenge the genuineness of a play attributed to the world"s greatest dramatist does involve, to some extent, a censure upon that play. The doubt implies that the play, as a whole, does not average the work of Shakespeare"s later dramas, that it does not bear comparison with the "Winter"s Tale," "Cymbeline," and the "Tempest," plays which, in the date of their composition, are contemporary with "Henry VIII.," and which were written at a time when the poet had obtained complete mastery over the resources of his art. If there are precedents of poets living till their once-glowing imaginations become cold, there is no record of a dramatist losing technical skill which has been acquired by the experience of a lifetime. It was but natural, then, that there should exist a feeling of uneasiness in the minds of impartial inquirers in regard to the authorship of this play, and it may be worth while to consider the history of the controversy.