Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Šárka Nováková

Four Images of Jews in Early Modern English Drama

Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Filip Krajník, Ph. D.

2017

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

...... Šárka Nováková

I would like to thank everybody, who had to suffer from my outbursts of the variety of emotions I went through during writing of this thesis, for not killing me. Also, I would like to thank the Masaryk University for founding the CPS.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 1. Context ...... 3 1.1. Jews in England...... 3 1.2. Usury ...... 4 2. Literary Analysis ...... 6 2.1. Gerontus in The Three Ladies of London ...... 6 2.2. The Jew of Malta ...... 10 2.2.1. Barabas ...... 11 2.2.2. Abigail ...... 19 2.3. The Merchant of Venice ...... 22 2.3.1. Shylock ...... 23 2.3.2 Jessica ...... 26 2.4. The Jewes Tragedy ...... 28 2.4.1. Ananias and Gorion ...... 30 2.4.2. Joseph ...... 31 2.4.3. Eleazer ...... 31 2.4.4. Jehochanan, Simeon and Zareck ...... 32 2.4.5. Miriam, a Jewish lady ...... 33 2.5. Physical Appearance of Jews in the Plays ...... 35 2.6. Depiction of Jewishness and Christianity ...... 37 2.5.1. The Jew of Malta ...... 37 2.5.2. The Merchant of Venice ...... 39 Conclusion ...... 42 Works Cited ...... 45 Summary ...... 49 Resumé ...... 50

Introduction

The main purpose of this thesis is to introduce the Jew as dramatic figure and confront it with the public perception of the time. Since their arrival to England, Jews have suffered from persecution, social isolation and overall contempt. They were always portrayed as aliens, never accepted as English citizens. Consequently, their appearance in literature or on stage aroused interest of Englishmen.

Although Jews appeared in the English literature as early as the Middle English Period, the scandal in 1590s concerning Queen’s Jewish physician stirred up the public interest of this theme. It is no wonder then, that the two most famous English Renaissance playwrights, Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare, have turned to the Jewish theme for inspiration. The Jew of Malta and The Merchant of Venice mostly depicting the

Jews as villainous figures, plotting against the Christians, have shaped the public opinion.

The this thesis, however, analyses two less known plays of the same period. The Three

Ladies of London written by Robert Wilson almost a decade before Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta, and The Jewes Tragedy written by William Heminge approximately thirty years after Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice.

Nevertheless, it is generally acknowledged, that there were no Jews, openly professing their faith, in England in the early modern period. Therefore, the image of Jews was derived from the stories passing from generation to generation for several centuries and from narrations of travellers. Since the Jews could not profess any other trade than money- landing, they were closely associated with the banking business and usury. Indeed, this association is noticeable in three of the analysed plays.

The thesis will briefly describe the history of Jews in England and the practice of usury.

Then it shall proceed to the close analysis of each play individually, with special focus to

1 the Jewish characters. The characters are presented in the context of the play and mark their impact on the development of the plot.

2 1. Context

1.1. Jews in England

The Jews do not seem to have lived in England before the Norman Conquest. They came to from the northwest France and almost from the outset had specialized in the banking business (Chazan 154). The Jews did not have many rights. Apart from the money- landing, the only trade they were allowed to profess, they were also perceived as nomadic people, who “have no land” (Adelman 19), therefore they were generally accepted as aliens.

The money-lending, and the fact that the English Jews “belonged” (Chazan 154) from the beginning to the kings, alone caused the intense anti-Jewish hostility. The earliest record of a king, King Henry I, owing money to the wealthy Jewish businessmen, already portrayed Jews as benefiting from these royal obligations. Later, the monarchy used the

Jewish lenders as an instrument of access to the money of the Christians, which only stirred up more population’s hostility towards them. In 1194, it was ordered by the government, that all Jewish loans have to be recorded for better control. The newly established officialdom could easily monitor and manipulate the business.

Although the Jews were already allowed to live only in the parts of the towns specially established for them, often outside of the town walls, the Third and Fourth Lateran

Council stipulated measures for even easier distinction of the Jews – a Jewish garb. Thus, they were immediately identifiable. After 1222, the royal authorities also limited the allowed contact between the Christians and Jews. In 1232, a home for the Jewish converts to Christianity, Domus conversum, was established and it remained for the rest of the thirteen century.

3 Kermode states that “the Statutum de Judeismo attempted to ban all Jewish usury” in

1275, and encouraged Jewish engaging in other trades, promising rights to property (16).

On July 18, 1290, it was announced, that all Jews are expelled from England and must leave by the November 1. The reasons of the expulsion are still a subject matter of the argument among the historians. Consequently, the English Jews faced an uneasy decision between migration and conversion (Chazan 154-67; Kermode, Three Plays 16).

Kermode observes, that many Jews have lived in England for several generations and thus

“well settled” (Three Plays 17). Even though many Jews converted to Christianity, Berek suggests that they at least occasionally kept participating in Jewish worship (132).

Nevertheless, they did not continue in their Jewish practices openly. Therefore, the dramatists of the following centuries had to create their characters on the basis of the

Jewish figures “from narrative rather than experience” (Berek 128), in other words, they had to draw on the stereotypical image of a Medieval Jew.

Kermode argues that, in practice, Jews began returning to England in small numbers from about 1540 (Three Plays 17). Although still forbidden to live in England, it is generally accepted that some, officially converted, Jews lived there during the reign of Queen

Elizabeth I (Mabon 413). One of them was a Portuguese Jew professing Christianity,

Roderigo Lopez, who became a physician to Queen Elizabeth. About eight years later was accused of, and executed for, a high treason of planning to poison the Queen (Brown xxiii).

1.2. Usury

Usury is lending money at interest, historically ascribed to the Jews. In order to fully understand following literary analysis of the early modern English plays, some terms need to be explained. One of them is “principal”, which in this context means a sum of money

4 lent by the usurer. “Interest” is the extra money, which the borrower must pay apart from the principal. “Forfeit” means, that the borrowed money were not paid by the given day.

Lastly, the “bond” is a collateral, in case of forfeiture of the contract between the lender and borrower, the lender shall get the bond.

The viewpoint of the Christians towards usury is quite clear. Kermode states that usury is condemned by several parts of the Old Testament (18). According to Berek the

Elizabethans saw the usurers as the “most attractive” villain and therefore the “most dangerous”. They also objected that usury is a “breach of charity”, because people should help each other without trying to profit from it and some even argued that usury harms the social order, because it helps “the low-born … get the land and money of the high- born” (Berek 146-7).

Overall, the Christians were strongly against the practice of usury and the fact that most usurers were Jews did not help to change their opinion. Moreover, they condemned the

Jews as greedy unmerciful sinners and refused to understand that usury was a profession deeply rooted in their history.

5 2. Literary Analysis

The plays chosen to demonstrate the Jewish personality as depicted in the early modern

English drama, were written between 1581 and 1624, therefore during a period, when the country was “officially devoid of Jews” (Kermode 17). Consequently, the Jews in these plays are never portrayed as residents of England, but as “exotic” figures living in

Italy, Turkey or, as in The Jewes Tragedy, Jerusalem (Brown xxxvii-xxxviii).

2.1. Gerontus in The Three Ladies of London

The play The Three Ladies of London was written by Robert Wilson shortly before

Stephen Gosson wrote his critique of the play in 1582, supposedly in 1581 (Kermode,

Three Plays 28-32). The play leans to the tradition of the morality plays. Apart from the

“real” characters, there are personified vices and virtues. Some critics say, that the part of this play concerned with the story of Gerontus and Mercadorus was to a certain extent inspired by the ballad of Gernutus written by an unknown author (Pochopová 29-30).

Nevertheless, the name and profession of Gernutus are the only aspects resembling the character of Gerontus. Furthermore, the ballad of Gernutus seems to be written more than a decade later than The Three Ladies of London (Brown xxxi), therefore, it is highly likely that Gerontus is an original character “invented” by Robert Wilson.

The virtues in The Three Ladies of London are overruled and brought to death by the vices, to whom everybody wants to serve. One of the vices living in London is a personified Usury, representing all the stereotypical characteristics usually ascribed to

Jewish usurers, money-lenders and pawnbrokers, such as cunning and mercilessness. In contrast, Wilson wrote a “real” character of a kind Jewish usurer called Gerontus. Edward

Lloyd Kermode argues, that it was Wilson’s intention to demonstrate “the equivocal and moving border between characters that are moral representations and those that are ‘real’

6 figures in the world” (Three Plays 37). Even though Gerontus appears only in Scenes 9 and 14, his story is nonetheless compelling.

Gerontus’ story takes place in Turkey. There he meets his debtor, a Christian merchant from Italy called Mercadorus. Mercadorus has borrowed two thousand ducats from

Gerontus, then borrowed another one thousand and fled the country before he paid him back. In other words, he owes Gerontus money for two years and refuses to pay. We are shown Gerontus’ gentle nature by the fact that, apart from the two thousand ducats, he agreed to lent Mercadorus the extra one thousand ducats for his “flattery” and his “smooth face” (9.4). When Gerontus finally reaches Mercadorus, the latter asks him to wait few more days to which Gerontus agrees again: “Well, I’ll take your faith and troth once more;

I’ll trust to your honesty, / In hope that for my long tarrying you will deal well with me”

(9.22-3). However, the merchant deceives him again and when brought before the Judge of Turkey, he proclaims, he will convert to Islam as, according to the Turkish law, “if any man forsake his faith, king, country, and become a Mahomet, / All debts are paid: ‘tis the law of our realm” (14.15-6). Gerontus promises, he will obey the law. Nevertheless, he tries to persuade Mercadorus not to forsake his Christian faith. Firstly, Gerontus offers to forgive him the interest if Mercadorus pays the principal. Secondly, he asks Mercadorus to pay at least half of the principal. When Mercadorus refuses to pay anything at all and continues in the process of conversion, Gerontus finally declares: “Thou forsakes thy faith, wherefore I forgive thee frank and free” (14.39). At that point, the merchant changes his mind and refuses to give up on his faith. The Judge of Turkey is stunned by this unexpected situation:

JUDGE OF TURKEY. Why, then, it is as Sir Gerontus said: you did more for the greediness of

the money

Than for any zeal or goodwill you bear to Turkey.

7 MERCADORUS. O sir, you make a great offence:

You must not judge-a my conscience.

JUDGE OF TURKEY. One may judge and speak truth, as appears by this:

Jews seek to excel in Christianity, and Christians in Jewishness. (14.44-9)

Thus, Mercadorus tricks the Jew and the Judge of Turkey to extricate himself from paying his debts, and escapes the story without any moral lesson.

This part of the play is intriguing considering the portrayal of the representatives of the three religions – Christian Mercadorus, Jewish Gerontus and Muslim Judge of Turkey.

The depiction of a Jew as an honest man and a Christian as a cunning traitor is remarkable.

As Kermode observes, Gerontus is someone who is expected to be “a double-devil (both usurer and Turkish Jew)” (Three Plays 34). Meanwhile, the Jew is not only fair,

“considerate and lenient to his borrowers” (Kermode, Three Plays 34), also he has understanding for other religions. Even though he spits out an angry accusation that

“many Christians make no conscience to falsify [their] faith and break [their] day” (9.9), he makes effort for saving Mercadorus from converting: “Signiore Mercadorus, consider what you do ... respect your faith” (14.27-33). Furthermore, when the Christian lets

Gerontus see he had tricked him again, Gerontus forgives him and kindly advises him to

“[s]eek to pay, and keep day with men, so a good name on [him] will go” (14.53).

Gerontus’ kindness resonates even more after considering that forgiving any amount of the money lent to Mercadorus must have cause him many financial difficulties. “We are not told that Gerontus has become rich through his trade and must assume that it is doing him significant financial harm to be left unrepaid of the three thousand ducats loaned to

Mercadorus for over two years” (Kermode, Three Plays 34-5). On the other hand,

Gerontus’ intelligence is at question, considering that he still believes in Mercadorus’

‘Christianity’ after all the betrays. Kermode also highlights the fact, that despite

8 Gerontus’ victimization, “it is still his money that permits the corruption of England at the hands of the Italian Mercadorus” (Three Plays 35).

While the story of a Christian deceiving a Jew would be generally accepted as a comedy, the conclusion of the Turkish judge (see 14.49) would resonate. The last words are meant to summarize this particular case, but also to evaluate the behaviour of other Christians in the play. It should not be forgiven that in the judge’s conclusion mirrors the social status of the Jews in Turkey, because Gerontus “resides in the country where the Judge can unapologetically use ‘Jewishness’ as a benchmark of stereotypically lucre-driven bad behaviour (albeit to express surprise at this Jew’s ‘Christianity’)” (Kermode, Three Plays

35). However, given that the play was written by a British playwright, it has to be perceived as a depiction of Jewish social status in England rather than in Turkey.

There is no doubt that The Three Ladies of London influenced many following plays with the Jewish theme. The Jew of Malta and the Merchant of Venice were clearly one of the plays which echo some of the aspects of the Wilson’s play, such as the three thousand ducats, three months’ space and the Christian hypocrisy (Kermode, Three Plays 34).

9 2.2. The Jew of Malta

The play The Jew of Malta was written by an early modern English playwright

Christopher Marlowe. The source of the story and the date, when it was written, is not known. However, it is assumed, that the play was written between 1589-1590 (Stonex

195). The story might be inspired by a Jewish merchant, David Passi, who lived in

Constantinople, was “connected with English diplomacy”, and who was involved in “the

Turkish designs against Malta” (Henderson 25-6). The play was “exceptionally popular”

(Steane 12) especially after “the Jewish Doctor Lopez was executed on the charge of trying to poison the Queen” in 1594 (Henderson 25). As a result, the play “gained a gratuitous topicality and was played fifteen times between 4 February and the end of

1594” (Brown xxiii).

Although called to be “the tragedy of a Jew” (Prologue, 30), literary critics often argue, that the play is “a kind of black comedy” (Jump 3) and “a high-spirited entertainment”

(Steane 30). Indeed, Barabas’ villainous contriving of revenge is sometimes “highly entertaining” (Jump 3) and consequently shows Marlowe’s brilliance, because even though Barabas is a despicable character “he wins an audience’s empathy” (Kermode,

MSC 217).

As Steane points out, according to modern scholars, Marlowe’s “moral thinking, as revealed by his plays, was Christian, orthodox and devout, holding up before the eyes of his audiences examples of the ways and fates of sinful men form which they could profit as from any sermon or Morality Play” (9). On one hand, it can be agreed that Marlowe was a Christian, the time and place of his life certainly suggest so. However, taking The

Jew of Malta into account, one can hardly believe, that he was “orthodox and devout”.

The play does not portray the Maltese residents black and white. Not all Jews are villains

10 and not all the Christians are innocent victims of the Jewish merchant. Despite the saying, that the writer does not necessarily believes in the same values presented in his work, plays especially, it is unimaginable that an orthodox Christian would write a play this anti-Christian. It is a play in which Marlowe “constantly underlines the contrast between what men profess to believe and what they actually do” (Henderson 23).

2.2.1. Barabas

Barabas is a wealthy Maltese merchant. His wealth is obvious from the first moment he is seen on the stage, “discovered in his counting house, with heaps of gold before him”

(stage directions, 1.1). Barabas is not trying to conceal his villainy, counting his money he says “Haply some hapless man hath conscience, / And for his conscience lives in beggary. (1.1.121-2), decidedly stating that wealth is more important than moral sense.

He also makes it clear in the first scene, that he hates Christians and never will become one, for they are liars, heretics and being a Jew, he has more money:

BARABAS. Who hateth me but for my happiness?

Or who is honour’d now but for his wealth?

Rather had I, a Jew, be hated thus,

Than pitied in a Christian poverty;

For I can see no fruits in all their faith,

But malice, falsehood, an excessive pride,

Which methinks fits not their profession. (1.1.114-20)

When the rest of the Jews “flock” (1.1.147) to him in hope that he will know how to handle the fact that a Turkish “fleet of warlike galleys” (1.1.149) came to Malta, he is clearly the most important of them. In effect, the audience suddenly sees Barabas as a powerful and strong figure. He, however, quickly reveals his greediness and selfishness:

11 BARABAS. Why, let ‘em come, so they come not to war;

Or let ‘em war, so we be conquerors.

(Aside) Nay, let ‘em combat, conquer, and kill all.

So they spare me, my daughter, and my wealth. (1.1.153-6)

Then the tragedy comes, the Turks come to Malta and demand the “ten years’ tribute that remains unpaid” (1.2.7). However, since Malta does not have enough money, the

Governor Ferneze decides to take money from the Jews, who are known to be wealthy.

Ferneze gives the Jews three options: first, each of them will “pay one half / of his estate”

(1.2.72-3), second, “he that denies to pay, shall straight / become a Christian” (1.2.76-7), or deny both and “absolutely / lose all he has” (1.2.79-80). While the Three Jews immediately agree to pay half of their estate, Barabas briefly hesitates:

BARABAS. Half of my substance is a city’s wealth.

Governor, it was not got so easily;

Nor will I part so slightly therewithal.

FERNEZE. Sir, half is the penalty of our decree.

Either pay that, or we will seize on all.

BARABAS. Corpo di Dio! Stay: you shall have half;

Let me be us’d but as my brethren are.

FERNEZE. No, Jew, thou hast denied the articles,

And now it cannot be recall’d. (1.2.89-97)

This scene is a widely discussed among literary critics. The scene is crucial for Barabas’ future development, because as David M. Bevington says “all of Barabas’ later acts are acts of vengeance or self-defense, and stem from Ferneze’s first pitiless deed. Hence the first two scenes are crucial in justifying Barabas’ subsequent treachery” (Bevington 151).

Most of the critics are convinced, that “we are suddenly faced with the irony of finding

Barabas the sympathetic victim of Christian treachery. Ferneze’s method of taxation is patently despotic, and his refusal to allow Barabas to pay the tax after momentary

12 consideration…is arbitrary” (149). Claude J. Summers agrees with him, calling the taxation “excessive” and” plainly unfair” (101). He also states the obvious impression, that the scene “presents most clearly the contrast between Barabas’ confessed opportunism and Ferneze’s concealed greed” (101). For a while, Barabas is a victim,

“psychologically complex and briefly pitiable” (Bevington 144).

Moreover, Bevington imagines that “[a]n Elizabethan audience, whatever its attitudes toward Jews in general, would have reacted with some indignation to Barabas’ broadly human plight. The dramatist intended his audience to view his ‘villain,’ for the moment at least, with genuine sympathy” (150). Indeed, Barabas’ lament for the loss of his money and therefore the possibility of securing his daughter’s future has this effect on the modern audience. However, Alfred Harbage argues, that the impression of the contemporary audience would be different. The Elizabethan audience would not disagree with Ferneze:

The idea that he is depicted as an honestly wicked character in a dishonestly wicked world is

erroneous. Barabas is not honestly wicked, but flagrantly self-righteous, and the world of Malta is

not depicted as wicked at all. In fact its governor, Ferneze, would have been greeted by an

Elizabethan audience with warm moral approval ... Ferneze exacts large fines from Barabas and

his co-religionists, but in a society like London’s, where men had recently been burned for being

the wrong kind of Christians, no one would have been shocked by a society like Malta’s where

men were fined for being Jews. Ferneze provides a choice … The offer would have seemed not

only just but generous. All of the estate of Barabas is confiscated when he proves momentarily

defiant, but this does not mean that Ferneze is portrayed as tyrannical. (Harbage 52)

Whatever the impression would be, Barabas proves himself a villain soon. “If Marlowe complicates our response to Barabas by making him an innocent victim of treacherous

Christians, he does not maintain Barabas’ innocence very long” (Summers 102). His lament lasts only until everyone leaves and Barabas reveals he had tricked everyone to think him poor. That leads the audience to feel cheated and to admire his cleverness at

13 the same time. However, one has to admit, that “Barabas’ enjoyment of his own villainy is so lively and so infectious that sobriety is impossible” (Jump 3). “He laughs exultingly at his cleverness in duping them [others], and the pity he has evoked…The revelation in soliloquy of his hypocrisy is an ironic undercutting of the apparent tragedy for a comic purpose” (Bevington 150). It is a perfect example of Barabas’ personality having an ambivalent effect on everyone else’s perceiving of him.

Barabas apparently did not realize, he won’t be able to return to his house, where he had hidden his treasure, for they converted “his mansion to a nunnery” (1.2.133), which is not only a punishment for not agreeing to pay the tax, but also an insult of his religion. When

Abigail tells her father, he cannot go to his house, he is devastated and the real tragedy shows in his speech for a while: “My gold, my gold, and all my wealth is gone!” (1.2.264)

Nevertheless, he quickly plans a strategy how to get to his wealth back, “he has a plan for every emergency” (Bevington 150). Barabas sends Abigail to go to the nunnery and bring him the treasure. This might seem unfair and dangerous, however necessary. “Barabas has to equal or even surpass his enemies in selfishness and hypocrisy in order to secure himself against their malice” (Pochopová 44). Abigail obeys, tricks the nuns and steals the treasure. Then they quickly become rich again, which Kermode uses as an argument against Barabas’ apparent profession. Kermode insists, that when Barabas “seems to regain [the money] almost overnight, we are surely meant to understand that there is only one method – usury – by which money can be so rapidly, miraculously, and unnaturally restored” (Three Plays 3). He, however, seems to purposefully omit the fact, that Abigail brings he father the “gold, the pearls, and jewels, which he hid” (2.1.23) from their house, newly established as nunnery. Kermode also does not explain, why the possibility of regaining the money as a merchant seems that impossible for him.

14 After restoring the money, Barabas buys a Turkish slave Ithamore, who is as wicked as

Barabas. Barabas and Ithamore are one-upping each other in their villainy (2.3.179-217) and it stays like that for the rest of the play until Ithamore dies. As Pochopová puts it

“They entertain each other enumerating the crimes they claim to have commited [sic]”

(38), after which there could no longer be any doubt of Barabas being “a monstruous [sic] maniac who takes pleasure in the murders which are performed with the utmost perfections” (38). From that point on, Ithamore limitlessly helps Barabas with all his evil- doing, while admiring him. Barabas even calls Ithamore his “second self” (3.4.15).

Critics often argue about Barabas’ sudden slip into a pure monster between Acts II and

III. They say, that it is possible to divide The Jew into two different parts, “that for most of the first two acts we are shown a Barabas who has some dignity and who, when wronged by the Christians, is a potentially tragic figure” (Jump 4) and that he degenerates

“into pure villain in the last three acts” (Bevington 151). However, looking back at the scene of Barabas and Ithamore entertaining each other with all the crimes they have committed, it is impossible to agree with the same idea pronounced by Bevington and supported by Jump and Pochopová, that Barabas’ “later career of viciousness is simply a return to his original nature rather than a new and puzzling development in character”

(Bevington 151). Nevertheless, one has to admit, that there is a difference between these two parts of the play. As Bradbrook observes, the first part is “concerned only with the mind of the hero”, while in the second part “actions supply nearly all the interest” (120), therefore it is understandable, that this overshadowing of Barabas’ mind by his actions may puzzle some critics, because Barabas’ acts and commits all the revenge rather than explains his motives and actions in details.

After promising Abigail’s hand to both Don Lodowick and Don Mathias, thus tricking them into a fight in which they both die, Abigail finally refuses to obey her father anymore

15 and joins the nunnery again, by her own will this time. Barabas is displeased, but surprisingly less irritated, than one would expect. It is until he finds out that Abigail decided to become a nun by herself. He immediately starts to hate her and disinherits her.

And all the worse, within a minute, he decides to kill his daughter. Not only had she betrayed the Jews, but with all her knowledge of her father’s villain deeds, Abigail becomes Barabas’ enemy. He sends a poisoned food to the nunnery as alms and all the nuns die. Barabas shows no regret:

ITHAMORE. Do you not sorrow for your daughter’s death?

BARABAS. No, but I grieve because she liv’d so long,

An Hebrew born, and would become a Christian (4.1.18-20)

However, before she dies, Abigail confesses everything to friar Barnardine. He and friar

Jacomo then want to extort Barabas for money. However, Barabas again proves to be a merciless villain and causes their deaths. First, Barabas and Ithamore strangle friar

Barnardine and set the dead body for friar Jacomo to think he had killed him. Barabas and

Ithamore “catch” friar Jacomo and once again he shows himself not to be an honest man:

“Good sirs, I have done’t: but nobody / knows it but you two; I may escape” (4.1.181-2).

Barabas then lets the friar be executed and ironically stands up for his religion saying “for this example I’ll remain a Jew. / Heaven bless me! What, a friar a murderer! / When shall you see a Jew commit the like?” (4.1.198-200).

Barabas can rest for a while, his peace, however, does not last long. Ithamore meets a courtesan Bellamira and her attendant Pilia-Borza, and together they try to extort Barabas too. When Ithamore betrays Barabas, it is a hard time for the Jew. Even if the charges pressed against him for killing all the people were not true, it is likely nobody would try to believe him. Therefore Pilia-Borza is right, when he is saying: “I know enough, and therefore … , Jew, it is in my power to hang thee” (4.3.42-4). “Was ever Jew tormented

16 as I am? (4.3.66)” Barabas asks and no matter how ironic it may sound, it is understandable, he is sincere.

After Ithamore’s betray, Barabas has nobody and grows bitter. He poisons Ithamore,

Bellamira and Pilia-Borza and pretends to be dead himself. The Governor’s order is free of any true Christian forgiveness:

FERNEZE. Since they are dead, let them be buried.

For the Jew’s body, throw that o’er the walls,

To be prey for vultures and wild beasts. (5.1.57-9)

When Barabas awakens from the deep sleep caused by a “sleepy drink” (5.1.61) outside the town walls, he helps the Turks enter the town through the sewers, they make him a

Governor of Malta. However, he is not capable of keeping that position. As Kermode argues “Barabas does have a real sense of the earthly fruition that he claims his power signifier – money – represents, but he cannot grasp the reality of power itself” (MSC 226).

BARABAS. I now am Governor of Malta; true --

But Malta hates me, and, in hating me,

My life’s in danger; and what boots it thee,

Poor Barabas, to be the Governor,

Whenas thy life shall be at their command? (5.2.30-4)

He seeks Ferneze’s help and pretends to be on the Turks’ side as well as on the Malta’s side and thinks he will profit from it. “Barabas’s [sic] victory is temporary, even illusory.

His greed will cause a final self-destructive attempt at gain and glory” (Kermode, MSC

225). “The structure of the final act follows the inevitable conclusion of all homiletic

‘tragedy,’ descending lower and lower into an insane depravity that can end only in punishment for the protagonist and restoration of order for those who remain” (Bevington

155). Barabas performs a “Jew’s courtesy” (5.5.115), he decides to betray the Turks and

17 kill them all at a great feast. The common soldiers, bassoes, are supposed to dine in a monastery under which there are “barrels full of gunpowder” (5.5.30) and Calymath should eat on a gallery, from which he is supposed to fall into boiling cauldron. However,

Ferneze stops Calymath from stepping on the gallery and it is Barabas who falls into the cauldron. What Barabas undergoes is, in Jump’s view, “a public execution, and it seems reasonable to suggest that this is how Marlowe wanted his audiences to regard it” (4).

Pochopová agrees that the audience is horrified by the death, nevertheless, it is also delighting and satisfying (43), which is exactly the feeling one would expect the people to gain at a real execution. Even though bassoes are dead, Calymath survives and the audience awaits a friendly relationship between him and Ferneze. However, Ferneze,

“although more humanely than [Barabas] would have done, also expunges the Turks, so that Malta is again in Christian control. He is quite the hero” (Harbage 52). While the end might sound as a Marlowe’s blessing for the Christians, Bevington claims the play to be

“morally neutral”, because Ferneze, Calymath, and other characters “are no better and no worse than Barabas; Ferneze’s final victory is merely a fact” (157). Although Barabas dies blinded by his bitter hatred, there is no important character in Malta, who would not suffer or become a victim of Barabas’ plans. Causing death of Don Lodowick, Don

Mathias, Abigail, unspecified number of nuns, friar Barnardine, friar Jacomo, Ithamore,

Bellamira, Pilia-Borza, all the Turkish soldiers, not forgetting his victims from past, it is obvious, that “end-product of his villainy is more notable for quantity than quality”

(Harbage 54). “Barabas’ plots are directed against everybody who stands in his way to wealth and power. But we receive little or no encouragement to think that his victims have any more scruples than he has” (Jump 2). After carefully analysing the play, one cannot disagree with Pochopová’s conclusion, that “Barabas’ character is the product of the world in which he lives” (43).

18 2.2.2. Abigail

BARABAS. I have no charge, nor many children,

But one sole daughter, whom I hold as dear

As Agamemnon did his Iphigen (1.1.138-40)

This very sentence in which Abigail is first mentioned, might be a key to the relationship between the Jewish father and daughter. As Steane mentions in the footnotes of the play,

Douglas Cole in his book Suffering and Evil in the Plays of Christopher Marlowe observed, that “[t]he most notable aspect of the relationship of Agamemnon to his daughter was never his affection for her but his willingness to sacrifice her for his own ends” (596). Indeed, Barabas uses his daughter for his personal revenge.

Abigail is a “fair young maid, scarce fourteen years of age” (1.2.391), and therefore still quite naïve and obedient. It is often said that Abigail is the only sympathetic character in the play. Her character puts the Jews in a better light, therefore, when Ferneze confiscates all Barabas’ possessions and even Abigail “perceives at first the justice of her father’s retaliatory tactics” (Bevington, 151), it becomes clear that there is something wrong about the Christians’ behaviour. On her father’s command, she pretends to turn Christian and becomes a nun. After she brings Barabas the treasure hidden in the nunnery, her former home, Abigail returns to live with her father again. At that point, Barabas seeks a revenge on Ferneze. He tricks Don Lodowick, Ferneze’s son, into thinking, that Abigail loves him and will marry him, while promising the same to Abigail’s real lover, Don Mathias, turning this two friends into enemies. At the same time, Harbage reminds, “[i]t never even occurs to him to prostitute his lovely daughter: he is mindful of Abigail’s chastity when actually using her as a decoy; the grounds of the intrigue at this point are the honorable intentions of her rival lovers” (55). Abigail keeps her heart devoted to Don Mathias, while pretending to love Don Lodowick. She is faithful, but obeys her father’s command to do

19 so. When her father promises she will marry Don Lodowick, she turns pale. When

Barabas promises the same to Don Mathias, she decides to “make ‘em friends again”

(2.3.363).

It is clear why Barabas wants Don Lodowick to die. As Barabas himself explains: “His father was my chiefest enemy” (2.3.256). However, the question, why he wanted Don

Mathias to die also, remains. One possible explanation is, that Barabas is too selfish to ever marry Abigail to anybody, “love for his daughter Abigail proves to be merely an extension of his self-absorbed greed” (Bevington 148). Her personal wishes are not important to him, otherwise he would not cause Don Mathias’ death. Even as Abigail says: “Don Mathias ne’er offended thee” (3.3.47). The more likely explanation, however, is, that Barabas wanted to teach his daughter about the importance of being Jewish.

Consider the following lines said by Barabas: “Are there not Jews enow in Malta, / But thou must dote upon a Christian?” (2.3.364-5). Therefore, one can conclude that even though Don Mathias did not personally do any harm to Barabas, he is not a Jew. The mere fact, that Abigail even chose a non-Jewish suitor must have been a disappointment to

Barabas.

After Barabas lures both suitors into a duel, thus causing their death, Ithamore tells

Abigail about the “neatly plotted, and…well perform’d” (3.3.2) murder. Summers observes, that “Abigail’s truly Christian response to the double murder contrasts sharply with the response of the victims’ Christian parents” (108). While Ferneze swears vengeance, Abigail believes, that she was the cause of the murders and out of her own will goes to the nunnery again. This time, she truly changes her religion. “Barabas is a loving father ... But even Barabas’ paternal love is not free from egoism. It does not outlast Abigail’s revolt against his authority” (Pochopová 37). Immediately after learning, that she became a nun willingly, Barabas disinherits her and decides to kill her too. His

20 “Iphigen” betrayed him, therefore, she is of no use to him anymore. Moreover, she is dangerous for him, for she knows the truth. Barabas poisons all the nuns with food, which is a mistake. It is highly possible, Abigail would not reveal her father’s secret, had she not make a dying declaration to friar Barnardine. She beseeched him not to reveal it, for then her father would die. It is an admirable wish, considering all the harm he has done to her. Her dying wish is to turn her father a Christian and to be considered a proper

Christian herself:

ABIGAIL. Convert my father that he may be sav’d,

And witness that I die a Christian!

Dies. (3.6.39-40)

Although the Elizabethan audience would probably see Abigail made this innocent by her new religion, it is undeniable that she has been kind the whole play. She remains “the only noble spirit of the play” (Pochopová 59) and in fact becomes a martyr.

Stonex claims, that the introduction of the Jew’s “rebellious daughter” was Marlowe’s most “fruitful contribution” to the further development of usury plays. Stonex admits, that Abigail is not yet the complete model, for she does not cause her father’s final overthrow, however, she was clearly an inspiration for the character of Jessica in The

Merchant of Venice (195-8) as well as Barabas “underlines subsequent Jewish characters in English Renaissance literature” (Berek 131).

21 2.3. The Merchant of Venice

The play The Merchant of Venice by the most popular playwright of all times, William

Shakespeare, must have been written in its present form between August 1596 and the summer of 1598. According to Brown Shakespeare probably “took a hint” from the popularity of The Jew of Malta and wrote his own up-to-date play (Brown xxi-xxvii).

It is generally acknowledged that most of Shakespeare’s work was not original. He was often inspired by folk-tales, ballads or work of other playwrights, and it also holds true in case of this play. Jacob Marcus Rader suggests, that the “pound of flesh” theme is not a

“historical reminiscence” coming from Shakespeare’s experience with the Jews, but an inspiration from an old folk tale (421). John Russell Brown claims, that the playwright was most possibly inspired by a story from Il Pecorone by Ser Giovanni, printed in 1558, which resembles The Merchant of Venice the most. Although its English translation is not known, the story contains many features from The Merchant such as the pound of flesh, wooing the lady, who eventually disguises herself as a lawyer and wins the case over the

Jew, the ring as a reward and also the place in which the story takes place, Venice. “It is highly probable that Shakespeare based his play on the Italian Il Pecorone, or on a lost

English version, closer to its original than any now known.” There are more works, which could function as sources and as Brown says: “Shakespeare often used more than one source for a single play, and there is no reason why he should not have done so for The

Merchant.” It is also highly likely that Shakespeare was inspired also by the ballad of

Gernutus and Marlowe’s portrait of a villainous Jew and his daughter who converts to

Christianity in The Jew of Malta. However, the degree of the real Jews’ influence on the character of Shylock is “intangible” (Brown xxviii-xxxi).

22 2.3.1. Shylock

The Jewish usurer of Venice, Shylock, is an old man living with his daughter Jessica. He is portrayed as a stereotypical Jew, money-gathering, anti-social usurer, who he hates all

Christians. He is “unprincipled” (Pochopová 44), “savage” and “ruthless” (Brown xlv).

Depicting Shylock, Shakespeare gives the reader an idea of a gargoyle-like figure, seeking human misery to gain from it, called “a kind of devil” (2.2.23). His old, hard,

Jewish heart jumps only when he hears about his enemy’s misfortune. Shylock does not live his life to the fullest, he has no time for the town’s celebrations and social events and, moreover, he does not desire to be part of the community. Brown describes Shylock as a

“most complex and dominating character; he appears in only five scenes and yet for many people he is the centre of the play’s interest” (Brown xlv).

Venetian named Bassanio comes to Shylock to borrow money. Bassanio’s friend Antonio offers to be bound for him. Antonio is a merchant and expects six boats from all over the known world in two months’ time, therefore he is confident in being held responsible for the punctuality of re-paying the money. Shylock particularly enjoys the fact of Antonio being involved in the case, for Shylock holds a grudge against him:

SHYLOCK. I hate him for he is a Christian:

But more, for that in low simplicity

He lends out money gratis, and brings down

The rate of usance here with us in Venice. (1.3.37-40)

Brown says that Shakespeare used the words “I hate him for he is a Christian” (1.3.37) to evoke among an Elizabethan audience “ideas and superstitions…centuries old” (Brown xxxvii). Clearly, Shakespeare meant to provoke such antipathy. However, it is Antonio’s

“active opposition to usury” that stirs the hatred in Shylock the most (Brown xliii).

Therefore, Shylock insists on writing a bond, assigning him to an equal pound of

23 Antonio’s flesh “to be cut off and taken / In what part of [Antonio’s] body pleaseth

[Shylock]” (1.3.146-7) in case of forfeiting the contract.

Meanwhile, Shylock’s daughter Jessica runs away with a Christian called Lorenzo, stealing jewels and a part of her father’s possessions. Shylock reactions more to the loss of the wealth rather than to the loss of his only child, depicting the dreadful relationship between these two characters, further discussed in the following sub-chapter.

Along with the information of Jessica’s flight with a Christian, another Jew named Tubal tells Shylock of Antonio’s misfortune, sinking of all six ships. Similarly to the Three Jews in Marlowe’s The Jew, Tubal is not important to the plot of the play and all in all goes largely “unnoticed” (Adelman 16), he merely serves as a messenger. Due to Antonio’s

“ill luck” (3.1.91), the contract is forfeit and Shylock demands his bond, despite the fact, that Bassanio’s wealthy wife Portia is willing to pay any sum for saving Antonio.

Shylock’s unyieldingness is clear in Act 3 Scene 3, where in his seventeen lines long appearance on the stage repeats “I’ll have my bond” five times.

ANTONIO. I pray thee hear me speak.

SHYLOCK. I’ll have my bond. I will not hear thee speak,

I’ll have my bond, and therefore speak no more.

I’ll not be made a soft and dull-ey’d fool,

To shake the head, relent, and sigh, and yield

To Christian intercessors: follow not, -

I’ll have no speaking, I will have my bond. Exit. (3.3.11-7)

Shylock’s “yearnings of revenge which quench any strain of human pity in him”

(Pochopová 49) brings him to his fall. He becomes a victim of his hard-heartedness.

In the famous trial scene, Shylock is first approached by the Duke, who proposes: “Thou wilt not only loose the forfeiture, / But touch’d with human gentleness and love, / Forgive

24 a moiety of the principal” (4.1.24-6), the audience senses not only the evident unfairness and groundlessness of such proposal, but also its apparent weakness when proposed to a revengeful Shylock. Then Portia disguises herself as a lawyer and solves the case. At first, she illogically decides, that if Antonio confesses the bond “[t]hen must the Jew be merciful” (4.1.178). Shylock refuses this decision, claiming there is no “compulsion”

(4.1.179) on which he must be merciful and Portia gives her consent to cutting of the pound of flesh. However, she warns Shylock:

PORTIA. This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood,

[…]

One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods

Are (by the laws of Venice) confiscate

Unto the state of Venice. (4.1.302-8)

On this argument, Shylock gives up his bond. Nevertheless, his life is in danger, for the law of Venice orders any “alien” to lose all his possessions if he directly or indirectly seeks “the life of any citizen” (4.1.345-7). Eventually, it is decided that half of Shylock’s property will be seized by Antonio and the second half by the State. Antonio proves his

“Christianity” when he lets Shylock live in his former house, if he becomes a Christian and that Lorenzo and Jessica will inherit everything after Shylock’s death. Shylock assents to these conditions and is converted. As Pochopová concludes, the act of conversion to Christianity is Shylock’s “moral execution” (55).

The moral lesson of the play is clear, however, as Brown observes, “Shakespeare has not contrived a simple opposition of black and white. The conflict cannot be watched dispassionately and the villain consigned to punishment without compunction. An audience is made to feel with Shylock, as well as against him” (lvii). The Jew’s point of view is “fully given and can, on occasion, command the whole sympathy of an audience”

25 (Brown xxxix). Although Shylock is the main antagonist of the play, his hatred of the world is from a significant part a response to an equal hate pointed at him. In other words,

Shakespeare only repeats the idea that not all Christians are indisputably good, which is already demonstrated in the preceding plays by Wilson and Marlowe.

The similarity between Shakespeare’s Shylock and Marlowe’s Barabas has been discussed many times before. As Brown puts it, there is “significant change of spirit” between them, while Barabas enjoys his life, villainy and cunning. He is energetic and with his passion and vivacity can move the audience into sympathizing with him. On the other hand, Shylock is “niggard in his house” and in his old age “can speak with the solemnity of an Old Testament prophet”. However, “there are similarities,” Brown continues “they are both sarcastic at the expense of the Christians and show a cynical disregard of consequences.” (xxxviii)

2.3.2 Jessica

Shylock’s only child Jessica is generally perceived as a prodigal daughter. She calls he home “hell” (2.3.2), openly states, that she is “ashamed to be [her] father’s child” (2.3.15) and blames her mother for bringing the “sins” (3.5.12) of being a Jewess upon her. As a young girl, she is not understood by her old father and vice versa.

From the perspective of the Christians in the play, she is “most beautiful / pagan, most sweet Jew!” (2.3.10-1) and they are truly concerned by the faith of her soul, because she is born Jewish. Nevertheless, she is clearly not orthodox and hopes to be saved by her

Christian husband, for “he hath made [her] / a Christian” (3.5.178). Besides, Pochopová believes, that Jessica is a positive character, for she “preserves the virtues of her nation: refinement, graceful deportment, wit and sense of humour, and exquisite feeling for beauty” (67). Brown also points out the potential audience’s sympathy towards her

26 induced by Lorenzo’s love towards her despite the fact, she is Jewish (xli). However, her personality is given in such a manner, that the audience agrees more with the Shylock’s point of view.

From the perspective of her father, anything Jessica does, is against his principles. She falls in love with a Christian, runs away with him and eventually marries him. When

Jessica runs away, she steals her father’s money, jewels and most importantly a diamond ring, which for Shylock was priceless. Many critics call her a “minx who…shamelessly joins [her father’s] detractors and enemies” (Brown xli). As Tubal reports to Shylock, she spent “fourscore ducats” (3.1.99) in one night in Genoa and callously exchanged the diamond ring for a monkey. Brown explains, that this part is usually believed to be intended to “gain more sympathy for Shylock” (xli) and judging by the prevailing impressions, it indeed works this way.

Nevertheless, the relationship between these two characters is more complicated. Shylock never shows any affection, warmth or kindness towards his daughter, “in their one scene together, he merely enjoins her to lock up his possessions and not to watch the Christian revelry” (Brown xli). Although, after Jessica’s disappearance, Shylock searches for her, it seems to look for his money more than for his daughter. Consequently, it is easier to understand Jessica’s behaviour. She shows no remorse of leaving her childhood home, and even though she is rather displeased with the “heinous sin” (2.3.16) of being ashamed of her father, she explains their disagreement by their different natures: “though I am a daughter to his blood / I am not to his manners” (2.3.18-9). Therefore, one cannot blame her for her cold farewell in Shylock’s absence: “I have a father, you a daughter, lost”

(2.5.56).

27 2.4. The Jewes Tragedy

The play The Jewes Tragedy was written by William Heminge, sometimes referred to as

William Hemings. It is not known, when it was written, however, Morley proposes her theory, that Heminge wrote this play before the Tragedy of Nero, Newly Written was published anonymously in 1624. She supports her claim on an idea, that Heminge “had little to gain by duplicating material already dramatized” (41-2). If that be the case,

Heminge wrote the play as a student at Oxford University from which he graduated in

1628 (Morley 41). Although it is not a well-known play, it was based on a work, which was quite famous during Heminge’s life. The full name of the play is The Jewes Tragedy, or, Their Fatal and Final Overthrow by Vespatian and Titus his Son. Agreeable To the

Authentick and Famous History of Josephus. Never before Published. Morley argues that

Heminge refers to the work of Flavius Josephus, translated into English in 1558 by Peter

Morwyng (or Morwen), which was widely read by the Elizabethans (44).

The historical Flavius Josephus was…a Roman collaborator and successful survivor of the Juden

civil wars and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, to which he was an eyewitness. His

pro-Roman history of the wars, written in Greek, is the only extant contemporary account of the

cataclysmic events of the period, and as a source is as biased as it is theatrical. (Morley 43)

Unlike the previous plays, The Jewes Tragedy does not depict contemporary Jewish usurers. It is a story of the overthrow of the State of Jewry, Jerusalem, by the Romans as well as by the coup organized by the rebellious part of Jews.

The Roman Caesar Nero has sent to Jerusalem his Ambassadors to establish peace with the Jews. They wanted the Jews to be ruled by the King of Jewry named Agrippa, nevertheless, to still be under the domination of Rome. This stirred up a coup in the State of Jewry, the Ambassadors were slain and, in order to save himself, Agrippa had to flee to Rome. Nero sends his soldiers to Jerusalem, for “[t]hat sturdy Nation shall repent their

28 pride” (1.1.29). The State of Jewry is thus ruled by the Priests and Captains. The ones, who killed the Roman Ambassadors, were two Captains, Jehochanan and Simeon. The high priest, Ananias, brings them to trial and while he pardons Jehochanan, he orders

Simeon to be banished from the country. He explains this decision:

ANANIAS. Jehochanan we know as deep in blood as Skimeon,

Both equal guilty ; yet should both be banisht

Their equal strength, united with their will,

May much endanger us; mean while we stand

As friends with one that we may both command. (450-4)

Meanwhile, the Roman soldiers arrive to the State of Jewry and threatens to start a war, if the Jews don’t pay the “Roman-tribute” (336). Ananias knows, the common people will refuse to pay and thus starts the war. Since Jehochanan knows the Roman soldier will weaken the state, he plans another coup, in order to save Simeon form the banishment and to gain political power. In the battle with Romans, one of the Jewish Captains named

Joseph is wounded and hides in a cave along with two soldiers. They starve and since the two soldiers decide to die as men, they want to kill Joseph and then each other. However,

Joseph tricks them and kills them both. The noise of the soldiers dying in the cave is overheard by two Romans, who take Joseph to their General, Vespatian, as a captive.

Three Jewish Captains, Jehochanan, Simeon and Eleazer, attack the priests, Ananias and

Gorion, and lays the blame of slaying the Roman Ambassadors on them. The seditious

Captains rule the State, however, they still have disputes, Jehochanan and Simeon tell

Eleazer, that he is not better than them, because his father, the high priest, is still alive.

Nero dies and Vespatian becomes the new Emperor. However, he dies in the battle. The leader of the Romans is Vespatian’s son Titus. Titus sends the Captains a messenger calling them to parley, which however, turs to a fight and Titus runs away. Eleazer decides

29 to kill his father. He tricks him into a talk without guards and Zareck, Captains’ servant, stabs the high priest. This point marks the beginning of the fall of the State of Jewry, confirmed by the Chorus:

CHORUS. Horror, confusion, hunger, plague and Death

Have seiz’d our Sacred streets, my fainting breath

Fails me to give the sad relation

Of sad Iudea’s desolation. (2196-9)

Famine strikes the State and Jews flee to the Romans for mercy. Jehochanan and Simeon refuse to surrender to the Romans and Eleazer is driven insane with the guilt of killing his father. The Romans finally invade Jerusalem and kill Eleazer. Jehochanan orders to set the sacred Jewish temple on fire and then flees as well as Simeon. However, the

Romans catch them and bring them before Titus. He orders the villains to be tortured and executed.

Given the overview of the play’s plot, let us proceed to the analysis of the characters.

2.4.1. Ananias and Gorion

Ananias is Eleazer’s father. He is the High Priest of the State of Jewry and as such, functions and a judge in the case of Jehochanan and Simeon. His “mistaken leniency”

(Morley 47) diminishes the audience’s admiration towards his wisdom and consequently, towards the whole character. Gorion is Joseph’s father and, unlike Ananias, survives the war. Ananias and Gorion are old and therefore not strong enough to face the political coup. As soon as it starts, they hide in the temple. As Kermode observes “the usurers are also often cast as stereotypical or at least recognizably familiar … old men [and] duped fathers” (21), and although The Jewes Tragedy is not a usury play, his claim depicts the priests quite well.

30 2.4.2. Joseph

The character of Joseph is clearly a depiction of the Josephus mentioned in the title of the play, who wrote the pro-Roman history of the war. He is portrayed as a God-fearing man.

When the Jewish soldiers want to kill him, so he does not suffer from hunger, he shows his respect to God’s will:

JOSEPH. Canst thou beleeve that Joseph means to dye

Without his Makers leave?

Curst be that hand that dares be lifted up

Against the power that made it,

Even by that sacred power, whose awful name

I dare not utter, tis not I fear to dye,

But to offend so great a Majesty (1020-6)

Joseph is captured early in the play and joins the Roman side. During the parley, he warns the Jews that “[t]he heavens have fore-decreed [their] overthrow” (2037), which later proves to be true. He is not a prodigal son, his behavior towards his father, Gorion is full of respect. On the other hand, it needs to be said, that since it was Josephus, who wrote the history, it is understandable, he did not depict himself as a villain.

2.4.3. Eleazer

Eleazer, is a prodigal son to Ananias, is initially a positive character. After the coup, however, he chooses the side of the power-seeking Captains and changes into a merciless brute and his own father calls him “a villain most unnatural, / A cursed wtetch [sic]”

(1491-2). Nevertheless, he fully realizes the change and knows, he will pay for it. When he falls asleep, Persiphone and three furies come and confirm his fear that he will go to hell:

31 PERSIPHONE. Endless shall thy torment be;

Horrour, plague and miserie

Shall afflict thy sooty soul,

Whilst the tortur’d spirits howl,

Banisht from eternall bliss (2391-4)

Adams observes that The Jewes Tragedy is, to a certain extent “indebted” to

Shakespeare’s plays. Apart from the famous soliloquy “To be, or not to be” from

Shakespeare’s Hamlet echoed in Heminge, there is also an “imitation of the watch in

Much Ado”, and the character of Peter faintly imitating Shakespeare’s Falstaff (62).

Adams, however, fails to mention the shadows of Shakespeare’s other plays, seen predominantly in the character of Eleazer.

Most evident is Eleazer’s aforementioned imitation of the Hamlet’s soliloquy: “To be, or not to be, I there‘s the doubt” (1141), however, that is not the only theme Heminge borrowed form Hamlet. After the death of his father, Eleazer suffers from compunctions and becomes mad, resembling Ophelia, to such extent, he sees the ghost of his father, resembling the scene with king Hamlet. Furthermore, Eleazer’s mad concern of the imaginary blood on his hands in his line: “I have washt, and washt, and washt, and cannor

[sic] wash this blood away” (2660) strikingly resembles the famous sleep-walking scene of Lady Macbeth in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. In result, Eleazer is a victim of his tortured mind tormented by his crimes. From the Persiphone’s speech is obvious, that his soul will not rest even when he dies.

2.4.4. Jehochanan, Simeon and Zareck

Jehochanan and Simeon, altogether with Eleazer are called the Seditious Captains. The stir the political coups and thus cause the fall of the State of Jewry. They are rebellious, wicked an cunning, therefore the “typical” Jews as presented by the early modern English

32 drama. They are called the “theeves” and “Cut-throats” (1364) and as Zareck reports:

“Each hunts the other’s life ; yet all do bear / A fair pretence of friendship to each other”

(1863-4). For their rebellion and a “scorn to bend to Cesar” (2031) are punished by Titus.

He orders them to be tortured and then put to an “ignominious death” (3121). As for

Zareck, he used to be a poor Jew until Jehochanan employed him to deliver a message to

Simeon, and paid him with gold. From that moment on, Zareck serves the three Captains, but is predominantly loyal to Jehochanan. As a servant of the most powerful figures in the State, is more and more confident in his own power. He becomes to enjoy his villainy with a zeal resembling Marlowe’s Barabas. It is him who murdered the high Priest, and promted on / the three seditious Captains to ambition, / that rob’d this wretched Lady, and gave fire / to Jewries sacred temple” (3224-7). And he clearly does not repent any of his wicked deeds. For all his evil doings, Titus justly condemns him to “be tortur’d with the greatest rigour / [that] Can be invented” (3237-8).

2.4.5. Miriam, a Jewish lady

Miriam is one of the most complex and most tormented soul of the play. She is a lady

“[e]xctracted from a noble family” (3160), however, the famine affects her too. First,

Jehochanan and Zareck raid her house and steal all the food. Then, she has to lower herself to beggary. When even the beggary does not save her from hunger, she cannot stand the torture of seeing her starving son. She has to resort to the worst scenario possible for a mother, she kills her son and plans to kill herself too:

LADY. Ile kill him first….and that once bravely done,

Ile kill the mother that has kild her son

[…]

BOY. Alas good mother, I am loath to die,

I wood fain live to see you get some food.

33 LADY. would’st therefore live, my boy, Why thou shalt be my food :

When I have kill’d thee, I will feed on thee (2613-25)

She stabs him to death and then cooks him for the Seditious Captains to feast on him. She wishes them to realize, that their cruelty causes suffering of others. She is deeply tortured by her sin and seems to turn insane. When the Romans overthrow the State, Titus orders her servant to look after her, otherwise she would “offer / Violence to her unhappy self”

(3177-8).

Although a “suggestion of anti-Semitism creeps into the play” (Morley 49), Wilson, unlike the previous authors, offers not only stereotypical Jewish characters, he also balances the portrayal with depictions of fair, just and innocent ones. Although drawing from an ancient history, is it quite surprising, that such a play was written in the Jacobean times.

34 2.5. Physical Appearance of Jews in the Plays

As was already said in the Chapter 1.1., the Elizabethan image of a stereotypical Jew was essentially an image prevailing form the Middle Ages. Stonex observes that “the physical appearance, the dress, and the personal habits of the usurer were modelled closely on a mediæval descriptions of Avarice” (192) in the morality plays. However, since the aspects named by Stonex were typical Jewish clothes, it is more convincing, that Avarice in the morality plays was modelled on the image of the Jewish usurers and not the other way around.

Adelman proposes the image of the Middle Age Jew as a physically unmistakable person with “red or black curly hair, large noses, dark skin, and the infamous foetor judaicus, the bad smell that identified them as Jews” (10). As already mentioned, they were required to wear a special clothing, a garb, which “graphically enforced their physical unmistakability” (Adelman 10). “Ugly, a starved appearance, diseased, old, socially isolated,” Kermode elaborates “these are the common features of the usurer” (24-5).

Although the is no hint insinuating Gerontus’ appearance in the Three Ladies, it is evident, he had to be portrayed stereotypically on stage. The fact is given, for the audience had to immediately recognize a Jewish usurer. The physical appearance was probably comprehended by the actor or director by the simple description in the Dramatis Personae

“GERONTUS, a Jewish usurer in Turkey” (Wilson 80). The same holds true in the other plays as well, Barabas is described as “a wealthy Jew” (Marlowe 345) and Shylock simply as “a Jew” (Shakespeare 2).

Nevertheless, in The Jew Ithamore occasionally makes a remark about Barabas’ nose, such as “O mistress, I have the bravest, gravest, / secret, subtle, bottle-nosed knave to my master” (3.3.9-10). Otherwise, there is no suggestion of his appearance.

35 Conversely, in The Merchant, there is no remark about his nose, yet the stereotypical

Jewish appearance is not omitted. It is said by Shylock himself, when he complains, that

Antonio spat on his “Jewish gaberdine” (1.3.107), talking about the garb.

The physical descriptions of the Jews in The Jewes Tragedy are also scarce. At the beginning of the Act II, Vespatian, the Roman General and later their Emperor, illustrates the Jews as “stout and lofty” (582). Later, when a Captain of a Jewish regiment talks to

Zareck, he says: “I am / displeased at thy most profuse evaporation” (1422-3), he might be alluding to the foetor judaicus mentioned above. However, since the Captain is a Jew himself and since Zareck is a poor Jew, it might be simply an indication of Zareck’s low status. There are more descriptions in the play, mostly uttered by a Lady Miriam’s servant

Peter, of the Jews being skinny. Nevertheless, it is a result of famine, therefore, it should not be classified as a “typical” Jewish visage.

It is possible to assume, given the direct references, that the Jews in the early modern

English drama were portrayed stereotypically not only in their profession and nature, but also in their physical appearance, based on the image prevailing form the Middle Ages.

36 2.6. Depiction of Jewishness and Christianity

Religion is undoubtedly the main factor of the plays, influencing the story and the characters. Since the issue “Jewishness” and “Christianity” as depicted in The Three

Ladies of London has been already discussed in the Chapter 2.1. and the religions does not play an important role in The Jewes Tragedy, this sub-chapter will be devoted to the analysis of the portrayal of religion in The Jew and The Merchant. The term “Jewishness” summarizes all the negative qualities, ascribed to Jews, such as greediness and cunning.

On the other hand, the term “Christianity” tends to summarize all the positive qualities of

Christian, such as kindness and forgiveness.

2.5.1. The Jew of Malta

BARABAS. […] religion

Hides many mischiefs from suspicion. (1.2.287-91)

Kermode argues, that “Barabas is a villain precisely because he is a Jew, and therefore the term ‘Jew’ will suffice to presuppose all other villainous attributes” (MSC 217) and

Jump agrees saying, that the play is anti-Semitist because of its “greedy and unprincipled

Jewish protagonist” (Jump 2). Although both points seem to be not far from truth, one has to consider the real events of the play. When Barabas and Ithamore jest about all the wicked deeds they had done, Barabas confesses to be cruel by nature. His religion is not the cause of his hatred, “Barabas’ hatred of Christianity is not balanced by a corresponding love for his own race” (Summers 100). Furthermore, Bevington emphasizes that “[i]t would be an error then to sympathize with Barabas as the representative victim of a downtrodden race, since his ill-will applies equally to Christian,

Turk, and Jew” (149). Nevertheless, Barabas is proud to be a Jew and even though all the

Maltese inhabitants are hostile and unfair towards him, he would never turn Christian and

37 it would never “subdue this pride” (Pochopová 36). The Christians are his greatest enemies as a matter of principle, which he clearly states every time he meets one or even only talks about one. He advises his servant Ithamore “to thyself smile when the

Christians moan” (2.3.177). His hatred especially grew after the discriminatory taxation.

The arbitrariness and unrighteousness of the Christians becomes evident to the audience after Barabas’ bitter reply to Ferneze’s lecturing:

FERNEZE. Excess of wealth is cause of covetousness;

And covetousness, O, ‘tis a monstrous sin!

BARABAS. Ay, but theft is worse. (1.2.127-9)

While Barabas is “an anti-Christian, a greedy self-centred betrayer of his own people

[and] a thoroughly despicable person” (Summers 100), compared to the “cloaked villainy” and hypocrisy of the Christians, Barabas’ open wickedness and greed seems to be “almost a virtue” (Summers 103). The unrighteousness of the Christians reaches its peak, when the two friars, Jacomo and Barnardine, who are supposed to represent the most virtuous men on Malta, prove themselves to be as corrupt and shallow as any common man. Barabas tricks them into thinking, that he wants to become a Christian and will give all his wealth to the house he will join.

BARABAS. All this I’ll give to some religious house,

So I may be baptiz’d, and live therein.

FRIAR JACOMO. O good Barabas, come to our house!

FRIAR BARNARDINE. O, no, good Barabas, come to our house! (4.1.78-81)

He then skilfully manipulates the friars into deceiving each other and causes their deaths.

Friar Jacomo’s because he turned Abigail Christian and friar Barnardine’s because he knew enough about Barabas to get him killed and wanted to extort him for money

(4.1.122-3). In only provides more proofs of the corruptness of these two characters were.

38 “The disparity between the profession of Christianity and the practice of Christians was a very familiar theme” (Herbage 49), however, it is surprising, that Marlowe dared to portray the Christians in such an unflattering light. It might be explained, as Bevington offers, by the fact, that the Maltese Christians are Roman Catholics “and Catholics frequently appeared on the Elizabethan stage as villains” (156). Marlowe used the anti-

Catholic tone “to provide motivation for Barabas’ acts as a Maltese Jew; but because

Barabas is also a villain, such factors work against the moral function of the plot, which suggests that all of his acts are wicked and are to be punished” (157). The only truly honest nature of Abigail should not be omitted. However, born Jewish and turned

Christian, it is not clear, which religion led her to be such an admirable person.

2.5.2. The Merchant of Venice

Some critics complain, that the Jews in The Merchant are treated with the “anti-Semite’s bigotry” (S.A.T. 47). According to S.A.T., Shylock, Jessica and Tubal are all stereotypically depicted as corrupted characters without any positive quality, he especially highlights the often-repeated likening of the Jew to the devil and vice versa

(48). Pochopová clearly agrees, when she calls the play “a bitter lament over intolerance and prejudice” (79).

Although S.A.T.’s comments are not insignificant, Brown challenges his claims by proposing the theory, that Shylock and Tubal cannot be considered the “typical” Jews

(xxxix). Consider the following Solanio’s comment when Tubal enters the stage: “Here comes another of the tribe, - a third cannot be / match’d, unless the devil himself turn

Jew” (3.1.70-1). This sentence undoubtedly expresses, that Shylock’s and Tubal’s behaviour is much worse than behaviour of any “typical” Jew.

39 Furthermore, Shylock’s sincere monologue about the similarities between the Christians and the Christians needs to be understood as an expression of Shakespeare’s personal understanding of the humanity of the Jews:

SHYLOCK. Hath

not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimen-

sions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same

food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the

same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed

and cooled by the same winter and summer as a

Christian is? – if you prick us do we not bleed? If

you tickle us do we not laugh? if you poison us do we

not die? and if you wrong us shall we not revenge? -

if we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in

that. If a Jew wrong Christian, what is his humility?

revenge! If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his

sufferance be by Christian example? – why revenge! (3.1.52-64)

Moreover, it should be said, that although Shakespeare depicts the Jews as “sagacious usurers”, he also admits, that their character is provoked by the “atmosphere of hate and persecution on the part of the Christians” (Pochopová 51). It should not be overlooked, that the Venetian law specifically forbids to shed a drop of “Christian blood” 4.1.306), therefore openly provokes the thought, that it is allowed to shed Jewish blood without any punishment (Adelman 23).

Still, the precise source of Shylock’s hatred towards all Christians is not explained, on the other hand, the reason for his hatred towards Antonio is understandable. Shylock’s occasional outbursts illustrate it clearly. Consequently, Antonio is depicted not only as a

Christian, but also as an anti-Semite when Shylock says: “You call me misbeliever, cut- throat dog, / And spet upon my Jewish gaberdine, / And all for use of that which is mine

40 own” (1.3.106-8). Shakespeare also openly criticizes the slavery professed by the

Christians, when Shylock is trying to defence his heartless and cruel treatment of Antonio:

SHYLOCK. You have among you many a purchas’d slave

[…] you will answer

“The slaves are ours,” – so do I answer you:

The pound of flesh which I demand of him

Is dearly bought, ‘tis mine and I will have it (4.1.90-100)

Nevertheless, S.A.T. later shares his understanding of the Shakespeare’s decision of such portrayal of the Jews with one objection:

In defense of Shakespeare it will undoubtedly be said that he had no precedent for any other

treatment of the Jew. Marlowe’s Jew of Malta and the stir created by the unfortunate tale of Dr.

Lopez…would have made any other treatment of Jews on the stage dangerous, perhaps impossible.

But it should not be forgotten that in a play published in 1590 – The Three Lords and Three Ladies

of London [as well as in its prequel The Three Ladies of London] – the author, one ‘R.W.’, brought

on the stage an honest and decent Jew. (48)

As for Jessica, she is depicted as a father-hating minx, however, she is sincere in her new faith. Adelman observers, that the Christians prove themselves to be hypocritical, for they complain about Jews’ “stiff-necked refusal to convert” (11), but when Jessica converts, they refuse to accept her as a Christian. Although Jessica herself claims to be Christian after the marriage with Lorenzo, other Christians in the play “persistently regard her as a

Jew” (7), because she cannot escape the stigma of being her father’s child whether she converts or not (13).

For all the aforementioned reasons it should be said, that The Merchant is not unequivocally anti-Jewish. Even though the “Jewishness” is here used in the negative connotation, the Christians are not innocent and it is them, who motivate the wickedness in the Jews.

41 Conclusion

English Renaissance drama offers very stereotypical depiction of Jews in all aspects of their personality. The “Jewishness” is introduced in its negative connotation as it was formed in the Middle Ages. Since the money-lending business was for a long time the only trade allowed to Jews to profess, the Jewish figures are often portrayed as usurers.

This profession bore with itself notion of greediness, for the usurers logically demanded the lent money to be re-paid. The money borrowers thus often tried to illegally free from the bonds between them and the money lenders by destructing them.

The money business was perceived as highly profitable to such extent, that the English government established an office controlling all the bonds and consequently controlling all Jewish earnings. That, however, was not the only mean of oppression of the Jewish population. The government also ordered all Jews to wear a special type of clothes for easier distinguishing from the Christian Englishmen.

At the end of the thirteen century, all Jews were banished from England for uncertain reasons. Some of them were already well settled in the country and therefore decided to rather officially convert to Christianity than to move out of the country. Nevertheless, they often continued to profess their faith in secret. Since these “converted” Jews were not allowed to exhibit any sign of their Jewish history, the image of the real Jews slowly vanished from the Englishmen’s minds and left only a faint memories of stereotypical

“Jewishness”. However, the opinion of the Christians was such, that a person born as Jew will never be fully Christian.

Therefore, when the physician of Jewish descend was accused of trying to poison Queen

Elizabeth I and was later executed for it, the public attention turned to the Jews again.

The political situation of the period had a direct impact to the popularity of the drama

42 with Jewish theme. The public opinion was shaped by stories coming from indirect sources and the plays by Early Modern English playwrights were often leading it in false directions.

Marlowe’s play depicting a villainous Jewish figure, The Jew of Malta became highly popular. Its protagonist, a cunning revengeful Jew Barabas, was exactly the kind of Jew the Elizabethan audience was looking for. It is needed to be reminded, that Marlowe also depicted Barabas’ kind daughter. However, she later turns Christian and, being killed by her father, merely serves as an instrument for unveiling Barabas’ malevolent nature.

The Jew’s popularity gave Shakespeare an impulse to write his play with the wicked

Jewish character, The Merchant of Venice. Although his Shylock is not nearly as evil as

Barabas, the overall depiction of Jews is as unflattering as in the Marlowe’s play. Shylock seeks his revenge on a Christian merchant and Shylock’s daughter is presented as an ungrateful, father-hating child.

The Jewes Tragedy, a play based on a story from the ancient times, is trying to portray not only the despicable Jewish characters, but also pitiable life stories of the citizens of

Jerusalem. However, it portrays the downfall of the State of Jewry as caused by Jewish power-seeking rebels. Therefore also does not cast a flattering shadow on the Jews.

The only play, that could be considered as written in favour of the Jews, is Wilsons The

Three Ladies of London. The Jewish usurer that appears on stage is depicted as kind, virtuous man, who keeps his word and leniently forgives the Christian merchant his debt.

It is important to mention, that, while the playwrights usually portrayed the Jews as unkind and wicked, the Christians also did not escape their criticism. Quite often it is a

Christian character, who forces the Jew to take drastic actions. Consequently,

43 “Jewishness” and “Christianity” are stripped of their connotations and are interchangeable.

44 Works Cited

Primary Sources

Hemings, William. “The Jewes Tragedy.” The Jewes Tragedy Von William Hemings: Nach Der Quarto 1662 Herausgegeben. Ed. Heinrich A. Cohn. Louvain: Bang,

1913. 1-78. Archive.org. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. < https://archive.org/stream/ jewestragedyvonw00hemiuoft#page/106/mode/2up >. Marlowe, Christopher. “The Jew of Malta.” The Complete Plays. Ed. J. B. Steane. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1980. 341-430. Print.

Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice. Ed. John Russell Brown. Walton-on

Thames: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1997. Print.

Wilson, Robert. “The Three Ladies of London.” Three Renaissance usury plays. Ed.

Lloyd Edward Kermode. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2009. 79-163. Print.

Secondary Sources

Adams, Joseph Quincy, Jr. “William Heminge and Shakespeare.” Modern Philology.

Vol. 12. No. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1914. 51-64. JSTOR.

Web. 2 April 2017.

Adelman, Janet. “Her Father’s Blood: Race, Conversion, and Nation in The Merchant

of Venice.” Representations. Vol. 81 No. 1. Berkeley: U of California P, 2003.

4-30. JSTOR. 3 Apr. 2017.

Berek, Peter. “The Jew as Renaissance Man.” Renaissance Quarterly. Vol. 51. No. 1.

Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1998. 128-62. JSTOR. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.

Bevington, David M. “The Jew of Malta.” Marlowe: A Collection of Critical Essays.

45 Ed. Clifford Leech. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964. 144-58. Print.

Bradbrook, M.C. “The Jew of Malta and Edward II.” Marlowe: A Collection of Critical

Essays. Ed. Clifford Leech. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964. 120-6.

Print.

Brown, John Russell. Introduction. The Merchant of Venice. By William Shakespeare.

Ed. John Russell Brown. Walton-on-Thames: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1997.

xi-lviii. Print.

Chazan, Robert. The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom 1000-1500. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 2006. Print.

Harbage, Alfred. “Innocent Barabas.” The Tulane Drama Review. Vol. 8. No. 4.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1964. 47-58. JSTOR. Web. 2 Apr. 2017.

Henderson, Philip. “C. The Jew of Malta.” Writers and Their Work: No.81 Christopher

Marlowe. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1962. 21-6. Print.

Jump, John D. Notes on Literature: Christopher Marlowe: The Jew of Malta and

Edward II. London: British Council, 1965. Print.

Kermode, Lloyd Edward. “‘Marlowe’s Second City’: Jewesas a Critic at the Rose in

1592.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900. Vol. 2. No. 2. Houston, TX:

Rice University, 1995. 215-29. JSTOR. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.

---. Introduction. Three Renaissance usury plays. Ed. Lloyd Edward Kermode.

Manchester: Manchester UP, 2009. 1-78. Print.

46 Mabon, Charles B. “The Jew in English Poetry and Drama.” The Jewish Quarterly

Review. Vol. 11.No. 3. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1899. 411-30.

JSTOR. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.

Marcus, Jacob Rader. “76. The Shylock Legend, 1200-1587.” The Jew in the Medieval

World: A Source Book: 315-1791. Ed. Marc Saperstein. N.p.: Hebrew Union

College Press, 1999. 421-6. Print.

Morley, Carol A. “Critical Introduction to The Jewes Tragedy.” The Plays and Poems of

William Heminge. Ed. Carol A. Morley. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson UP,

2006. 33-102. Google Books. Web. 29 Apr. 2017.

Pochopová, Marta. “Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’ and Marlowe’s ‘Jew of

Malta’.” Diss. U Jana Evangelisty Purkyně, 1969. Print.

S.A.T. “Shakespeare an anti-Semite?” The Shakespeare Association Bulletin. Vol. 19.

No. 1. Washington, D.C.: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1944. 47-48. JSTOR.

Web. 21 Mar. 2017

Steane, J. B. Introduction. The Complete Plays. By Christopher Marlowe. Ed.

J. B. Steane. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1980. 341-430. Print.

Stonex, Arthur Bivins. “The Usurer in Elizabethan Drama.” PMLA. Vol. 31, No. 2.

N.p.: MLA, 1916. 190-210. JSTOR. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.

Summers, Claude J. “The Jew of Malta and Machiavellianism.” Christopher Marlowe

and the Politics of Power. Ed. James Hogg. Salzburg: Universität Salzburg,

47 1974. 91-116. Print.

48 Summary

The aim of this thesis is to analyse four English plays written in Renaissance, depicting one or more Jewish characters. After the historical context is established, it continues with the literal analysis. The plays chosen for this analysis are presented in chronological order of their creation.

Firstly, the play The Three Ladies of London is introduced. Its only Jewish character is

Gerontus, a usurer. His kind and human-nature understanding nature is strikingly contrasted with the wickedness of a Christian merchant, who borrows his money. The part of the play, concerned with these who characters, destroys the stereotypical perception of so called “Jewishness”, usually being portrayed as a negative quality.

Secondly, the thesis introduces The Jew of Malta written by a well-known Elizabethan playwright, Christopher Marlowe. In the play, the State of Malta unjustly confiscates all possessions of a Jewish merchant, Barabas. This act stirs up Barabas’ hatred of the

Christians and he revenges on every character, who betrays him, including his daughter

Abigail.

Thirdly, the Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice is analysed. A Jewish usurer named Shylock lends money to a Venetian named Bassanio, provided, that Bassanio’s friend Antonio will guarantee for him. When the money is not re-paid, Shylock famously demands Antonio’s pound of flesh.

Lastly, the play The Jewes Tragedy is introduced, It is based on an ancient story of the fall of the State of Jewry. Apart from the villainous characters, this play provides also positive Jewish characters.

The aim of this thesis is to show the Jewish characters of the Renaissance drama being depicted as essentially wicked figures.

49 Resumé

Cílem této práce je rozbor židovských postav ve čtyřech hrách anglické renesance.

Nejprve je čtenáři poskytnut historický kontext a dále práce pokračuje literárním rozborem vybraných děl, chronologicky seřazených podle jejich vzniku.

Jako první je představena hra The Three Ladies of London. V této hře figuruje pouze jedna

židovská postava, a to lichvář jménem Geruntus. Jeho vlídná povaha silně kontrastuje se zlomyslnou postavou křesťanského kupce, který si od Geronta vypůjčí peníze a odmítne je splatit. Tato část hry, zabývající se nesvárem mezi židem a křesťanem, bourá stereotypní vnímání „židovskosti“ jako negativní vlastnosti.

Poté následuje hra známého anglického dramatika, Christophera Marlowa, The Jew of

Malta. V této hře je křesťany nespravedlivě zkonfiskován majetek židovského kupce

Barabase. Tento akt rozdmýchá v Barabasovi nenávist vůči křesťanům a přiměje ho k pomstě, kterou vykoná na každém, kdo ho zradí. Mezi jeho obětmi se ocitá i Barbasova vlastní dcera Abigial.

Následuje The Merchant of Venice od slavného Williama Shakespeara. Židovský lichvář

Shylock vypůjčí benátčanovi jménem Bassanio peníze pod podmínkou, že za něj bude ručit Bassaniův přítel Antonio. Když se jim nepodaří peníze včas splatit, Shylock požaduje libru masa, kterou chce vyříznout z Antoniova těla.

Jako poslední je představena téměř neznámá hra The Jewes Tragedy. Tato hra je založena na historickém textu popisující pád Jeruzaléma kolem roku 70 n.l. Kromě ničemných postav prahnoucích po moci, jsou zde ztvárněny i pohnuté osudy několika kladných

židovských postav.

Tato práce si dává za cíl, ukázat čtenáři převážně stereotypně zákeřné a chamtivé ztvárnění židovských postav v anglickém renesančním dramatu.

50