Revisiting the Usurer: The Portrayal of Shylock as an Affectionate Father in Howard Jacobson's Shylock Is My Name

119 REVISITING THE USURER: THE PORTRAYAL OF SHYLOCK AS AN AFFECTIONATE FATHER IN HOWARD JACOBSON’S SHYLOCK IS MY NAME Alejand o Nadal Ruiz Uni e si y o Za agoza ABSTRACT: This a icle aims o e-in e p e he i gu e o Shylock in William Shakespea e’s The Me chan o Venice by explo ing how i s no el ew i ing by Howa d Jacobson p o ides a mo e posi i e po ayal o he Jewish usu e . I a emp o a gue ha Jacobson’s Shylock Is My Name con ibu es o e- eading Shylock as a hough ul a he who uly lo es his daugh e Jessica. Indeed, his 21s -cen u y e elling e ol es a ound he connec ion be ween Shylock and Simon S ulo i ch, a Jewish philan h opis who has also been neglec ed by his daugh e . The no el p esen s Shylock as a us wo hy cha ac e ha is de e mined o help his iend c ea e an emo ional bond wi h his daugh e . Mo eo e , Jacobson succeeds in empowe ing Shakespea e’s Shylock o such an ex en ha he e ol es om being an unde dog in Venice o being widely espec ed by English socie y. As ega ds me hodology, I ha e used he hizoma ic model p oposed by Douglas Lanie wi h he pu pose o explo ing he en iching dialogue be ween he sou ce ex and his ew i ing. Keywo ds: Shylock, William Shakespea e, Howa d Jacobson, ew i ings, Shakespea ean hizoma ics. RESUMO: Es e a igo isa ein e p e a a i gu a de Shylock em The Me chan o Venice, de William Shakespea e, explo ando o modo como a sua eesc i a no elís ica po Howa d Jacobson o e ece um e a o mais posi i o do usu á io judeu. P e endo a gumen a que Shylock Is My Name, de Jacobson, con ibui pa a uma elei u a de Shylock como pai cuidadoso que e dadei amen e ama a sua i lha Jessica. De ac o, es a e são do 120 Alejand o Nadal Ruiz século XXI gi a em o no da ligação en e Shylock e Simon S ulo i ch, um i lan opo judeu que ambém oi negligenciado pela sua i lha. O omance ap esen a Shylock como uma pe sonagem digna de con i ança que es á de e minada a ajuda o amigo a c ia um laço emocional com a i lha. Pa a além disso, Jacobson consegue con e i pode ao Shylock de Shakespea e a al pon o que ele passa de indi íduo desp ezado em Veneza a pessoa amplamen e espei ada pela sociedade inglesa. No que espei a a me odologia, oi seguido o modelo izomá ico p opos o po Douglas Lanie , com o objec i o de explo a o diálogo en iquecedo en e o ex o-base e es a eesc i a. Pala as-cha e: Shylock, William Shakespea e, Howa d Jacobson, eesc i as, izoma shakespea iano. 1. In oduc ion In he in oduc o y sec ion o he olume Shakespea e and he E hics o App op ia ion, Alexa Huang and Elizabe h Ri lin ma k ha ou s is “an age when Shakespea e is inc easingly globalized, di e si i ed, sp ead hin, and applied in se ice o a mul i ude o agendas” (2). The globalisa ion cha ac e izing p esen -day socie y has con ibu ed o he pe meabili y o Shakespea e in o he ealm o popula cul u e. The sp ead o such a phenomenon has been boos ed by means o a ple ho a o adap a ions which bea some connec ion wi h he sou ce ex . As no ed by Ma k Tho n on Bu ne e al., such adap a ions “ unc ion ac oss and h ough his o y in an in ica ely laye ed ashion” (1). The ho izon al connec ion be ween Shakespea e’s ex s and p esen -day ew i ings en ails adding new meaning ul laye s ha en ich he sou ce ex s o such an ex en ha hey become impe ishable. In he case o na a i e ew i ings o Shakespea e, Ma ianne No y a gues ha hey “may gi e mo e a en ion o a mino cha ac e , and some imes ha shi d as ically al e s he balance o sympa hies agains he cha ac e based on Shakespea e’s he o” (51). Indeed, ew i ing Shakespea e means b inging o he su ace mino hemes and cha ac e s o he sou ce ex s ha a e o g ea ele ance o be e unde s anding social conce ns ha a e p e alen in all cul u es. Wi h his concep ion o ew i ing-as-en iching in mind, his a icle will p o ide an analysis o Howa d Jacobson’s no el Shylock Is My Name (2016). This no el is a ew i ing o William Shakespea e’s The Me chan o Venice se in con empo a y England. The ocus o his s udy will all on how his adap a ion calls in o ques ion he iew ha Shylock is an unsympa he ic cha ac e who is solely conce ned wi h money and eligion. As o seconda y li e a u e on Shakespea e’s The Me chan o Venice, schola s such as John D akakis, John G oss, Joan Holme , Ignaz Maybaum, Julie Mell, and I ene Middle on co e ly sugges ha , a om being a usu e blinded by his c a e Alejand o Nadal Ruiz 121 o money and by his uneasy ela ionship wi h Ch is ians, Shakespea e’s Shylock could be sympa he ically seen as a soul ul cha ac e . Fu he mo e, hey imply ha Shylock migh be seen as a lo ing a he who is conce ned wi h he wel a e o his daugh e Jessica. Howe e , he e is li le esea ch in o he li e a y adap a ions o his speci i c Shakespea e play. Wha is mo e, he e a e no s udies so a on how hese adap a ions a emp o show Shylock as an a ec iona e a he . Acco dingly, he p esen s udy will ocus on he ole o Howa d Jacobson’s Shylock as a a he who has been neglec ed by his daugh e Jessica bu ne e heless shows a deep emo ional connec ion wi h he . Indeed, his a icle will a emp o p o ide a mo e posi i e po ayal o his Jewish male cha ac e as an a ec iona e a he . My main con en ion is ha Jacobson’s li e a y adap a ion o The Me chan o Venice con ibu es o showing he hi he o emo se ul Jew as a ca ing a he who uly lo es his daugh e Jessica. As a esul , his con empo a y ew i ing pa akes o a hizoma ic ela ionship wi h he sou ce ex in ha i aims o ans o m and en ich he sou ce ex by explo ing some o i s key aspec s in a di e en , inno a i e ligh . Wi h ega d o me hodology, i s I b ie l y explo e he ela ionship be ween Shylock and Jessica in Shakespea e’s wo k, wi h a ocus on how he Jew eac s o he elopemen o his daugh e . Wi h a iew o o eg ounding he en iching dialogue be ween Shakespea e’s play and Jacobson’s ew i ing, I apply he hizoma ic dimension sugges ed by Douglas Lanie . This hizoma ic app oach p o es ui ul o assessing o wha ex en he a ge ed adap a ion enhances he a he ly side o Shylock, bo h as a counsello o he o he neglec ed a he in he no el and as a i gu e who is admi ed by hose who in e ac wi h him. As ega ds his a icle’s s uc u e, i s ly he e is a sec ion ha explains Lanie ’s hizoma ic app oach o Shakespea ean adap a ions and how his schola ’s heo y is pu in o p ac ice in he Hoga h Shakespea e se ies. A e his, some schola ly con en ions on he humane ace o Shakespea e’s Shylock a e e iewed. Finally, he e is a ho ough analysis o how Jacobson’s no el con ibu es o p esen ing a posi i e po ayal o he a ge ed cha ac e as an a ec iona e a he . 2. Shakespea e’s Rhizoma ics and he Hoga h Shakespea e P ojec The pos mode n endea ou o b ing o he o e he (hi)s o ies o mino i ies whose oices had been p e iously e ased was a s a ing poin in he p oli e a ion o li e a y e ellings. As Fe nando Gal án con ends, he English li e a y canon has unde gone a “ e olu ion” ha ansla es in o “a e eading, an in e p e a ion o canonical wo ks” (187). Such a new in e p e a ion o canonical wo ks has gi en ise o a la ge numbe o li e a y ew i ings o app op ia ions: in he case o Shakespea e, Ángeles de la Concha main ains 122 Alejand o Nadal Ruiz ha he in l ux o e ellings is such ha ew i ings o Shakespea e may be said o ha e become a subgen e somehow (10). In his con ex whe e he canon is e isi ed, i seems easonable o adop an app oach ha does no a ou he sou ce ex o e he ew i ing. In acco dance, Ch is y Desme p oposes add essing app op ia ions as a “dialogical phenomenon – no simply a con e sa ion o collabo a ion be ween app op ia ing and sou ce ex s, bu an exchange ha in ol es bo h sha ing and con es ed owne ship” (42). Along he same lines, Susana Onega and Ch is ian Gu leben in oduce he concep o e ac ion: “ he assump ion o a dialec ic ela ion be ween he canonical and pos mode nis ex s, a ec ing he esul as well as he sou ce” (7). Such a dialogical app oach is by no means an a emp o explo e o wha ex en he ew i ing is ai h ul o he sou ce ex . Ins ead, he dialogue be ween bo h wo ks is analogous o he me apho o he palimpses , he palimpses being “an in olu ed phenomenon whe e o he wise un ela ed ex s a e in ol ed and en angled, in ica ely in e wo en, in e up ing and inhabi ing each o he ” (Dillon 3-4). In an a emp o go beyond he hackneyed emphasis on he ques ion o i deli y o he o iginal ex , Douglas Lanie sugges s shi ing he ocus o he Shakespea ean adap a ions hemsel es (“Rhizoma ics” 27). In o de o do so, he eso s o Gilles Deleuze and Félix Gua a i’s1 concep o he “ hizome”. In he chap e “Shakespea ean Rhizoma ics: Adap a ion, E hics, Value”, Douglas Lanie explains ha Shakespea e app op ia ions could be unde s ood as “a ho izon al, decen e ed mul iplici y o sub e anean oo s ha c oss each o he , bi u ca ing and ecombining, b eaking o and es a ing” (28). The adjec i e ho izon al aims o enhance he dialogic and palimpses ic app oaches desc ibed abo e: ac ually, such a ho izon al ne wo k o ela ionships gua an ees ha none o he ex s is gi en mo e p ominence, bu bo h o hem ha e a posi i e in l uence on he o he . Then, Lanie goes on o p o ide an explana ion o he main aim o Shakespea ean hizomes: “A hizoma ic concep ion o Shakespea e s esses he powe o hose e e -di e en ia ing pa icula s [...] o ans o m and es uc u e he agg ega ed Shakespea ean i eld in o some hing o e e new” (“Rhizoma ics” 31). Hence, an app op ia ion o a Shakespea ean ex is no mean o be a me e pas iche o epe i ion o he sou ce ex ; wha i seeks is o p o ide an ou come ha can be adically di e en om he o iginal play bu ha is aimed a i nding new meanings in he sou ce ex . This explana ion may suppo he e y na u e o he wo d “ hizome”: unlike in oo s, he e is no hing i xed o s able in he sou ce ex o in he adap a ion; a he , he Shakespea ean ex could be desc ibed as palimpses ic in na u e. 1 Acco ding o Gilles Deleuze and Félix Gua a i, he hizome designa es a mode o ela ion in ol ing “ he apa allel e olu ion o wo beings ha ha e absolu ely no hing o do wi h each o he ” (10). Alejand o Nadal Ruiz 123 Wi h his aim in mind, in 2014 Hoga h P ess launched he Hoga h Shakespea e P ojec . The B i ish publishing house commissioned bes selling w i e s o eimagine and ew i e some o he mos acclaimed o Shakespea e’s plays o a 21s -cen u y audience. Thus a , up o se en Shakespea e’s no el ew i ings ha e been published as pa o his ambi ious p ojec : Jeane e Win e son’s The Gap o Time (2015), on The Win e ’s Tale; Howa d Jacobson’s Shylock Is My Name (2016), on The Me chan o Venice; Anne Tyle ’s Vinega Gi l (2016), on The Taming o he Sh ew; Ma ga e A wood’s Hag-Seed (2016), on The Tempes ; T acy Che alie ’s New Boy (2017), on O hello; Edwa d S . Aubyn’s Dunba (2017), on King Lea ; and Jo Nesbø’s Macbe h (2018), on Macbe h. Addi ionally, i is expec ed ha a ew i ing o Hamle by Gillian Flynn will be eleased in he cou se o 2021. As Sheila Ca anagh has ema ked, “ he li e a y pedig ees o he commissioned au ho s a e unassailable, bu he quali y o he ex s p esen ed a ies widely” (99). The a ying quali y o hese ew i ings no wi hs anding, i could be asse ed ha all o hem pa ake o he hizoma ic concep ion explained abo e. Indeed, a dialogue be ween Shakespea e’s plays and hei p esen -day app op ia ions om he Hoga h se ies is es ablished in wo ways. Fi s , schola s such as So ía Muñoz-Valdi ieso highligh how he ludic quali y o his se ies enhances he wo-way in l uence be ween sou ce ex and adap a ion: “[I ] o ces he w i e s o ne e lose sigh o Shakespea e’s wo k and make su e ha eade s i nd enough elemen s ha hey can ecognize om he plays” (108). Second, he p ocess o no elisa ion allows o a mo e in-dep h psychological po ayal o cha ac e s. Along he same lines, Mi anda Fay Thomas a gues ha no elisa ions o plays “ha e he po en ial o o e he eade a di ec iew in o he mind o al eady well-known cha ac e s, adding ma e ial o u he l esh ou cha ac e isa ion, mo i a ion, and back s o y” (43). Hence, he use o de eloped na a i e echniques con ibu es o eimagining cha ac e s ha a e easily ecognisable, such as Hamle , O hello, and Shylock. Besides enabling he de elopmen o hese cha ac e s’ backs o y, he hizoma ic e-imagina ion o Shakespea e’s plays acili a es he c ea ion o al e na i e endings and sequels ha e-explo e aspec s ha ha e no been paid much eade ly o schola ly a en ion. In he case o The Me chan o Venice, he e is one speci i c e elling ha should be b ie l y men ioned be o e dealing wi h Jacobson’s no el. In 1973, he acclaimed playw igh A nold Weske was bi e ly hu by Lau ence Oli ie ’s ep esen a ion o Shylock in Jona han’s Mille p oduc ion a he Na ional Thea e. In he p e ace o his wo k The Me chan , Weske epo s his discom o wi h Shakespea e’s play acco dingly: “I was s uck by he play’s i edeemable an i-Semi ism. I was no an in ellec ual e alua ion bu he immedia e impac I ac ually expe ienced” (l). As a Jewish a is , Weske answe ed back by w i ing he play The Me chan (1976), a ex ha digni i es Shylock – and Jewish communi ies a la ge – by shi ing he ocus om usu y o solida i y, and by calling o a ha monious coexis ence be ween Ch is ians and Jews. As a ma e o ac , Shylock pleads 124 Alejand o Nadal Ruiz wi h he bigo ed Lo enzo: “Lea n o li e wi h us. The Jew is he Ch is ian’s pa en ” (idem 39). Fu he mo e, Weske con ibu es o enhancing Shylock’s unde s anding by s essing his de o ion o books and his uncondi ional lo e o his iend An onio. To a lesse ex en , his e-imagina ion also discloses he Jew’s ca e o his daugh e Jessica: “No hing I easu e mo e, excep my daugh e ” (idem 3). Ne e heless, he a he -daugh e ela ionship is no a majo conce n in his play. This amily bond is a ma e ha is elabo a ed on in he li e a y adap a ion o be s udied in his a icle. Howa d Jacobson’s Shylock Is My Name del es in o he edgy ela ionship be ween Shylock and his daugh e Jessica. P io o explo ing how his ew i ing con ibu es o p esen ing a mo e humane po ayal o Shylock as a lo ing a he , he e should be a b ie explo a ion o he a he -daugh e ela ion in The Me chan o Venice. Seemingly, such a ela ionship could be deemed somewha seconda y in Shakespea e’s play o wo easons: i s , he e a e e y ew momen s in which a he and daugh e coincide on s age; second, i could be asse ed ha mo e p ominence has been gi en o issues such as he indi idual and collec i e bond be ween Ch is ians and Jews, and he i gu e o Shylock as a usu e . Howe e , Jacobson’s no el engages in Lanie ’s hizoma ic model and ul ima ely gi es mo e p ominence o he hi he o seconda y a he - daugh e ie wi h a iew o e-imagining he beha iou o Shylock. 3. The Rela ionship Be ween Shylock and Jessica in The Me chan o Venice The i s occasion in which Shylock and Jessica happen o mee on s age is in Ac II, Scene V. A his poin in he play, Shylock calls his daugh e and announces o he ha he will no dine a home. A e gi ing Jessica he keys o he house, he u ges he o ake a numbe o p ecau ions o ea ha ouble is coming: Hea you me, Jessica. Lock up my doo s [...] Clambe no you up o he casemen s [...], No h us you head in o he public s ee , To gaze on Ch is ian ools wi h a nish’d aces; (II. .27-33) This passage e l ec s he ac ha Shylock has a pa e nalis ic a i ude owa ds Jessica, hus poin ing o he o e a ching pa ia chy ha , acco ding o schola s such as John D akakis and I ene Middle on, p e ails in Shylock’s house. Such a ela ionship is s eng hened by Holme ’s con en ion ha he Jew is “p o ec i ely unna u al in his ea men o his daugh e ” (122). In hei seminal wo k The Madwoman in he A ic, Sand a Gilbe and Susan Guba Alejand o Nadal Ruiz 125 main ain he ollowing wi h ega d o au ho i y: “The oo s o ‘au ho i y’ ell us, a e all, ha i woman is man’s p ope y hen he mus ha e au ho ed he , jus as su ely as hey ell us ha i he au ho ed he she mus be his p ope y” (13). Ex apola ing his quo a ion o he a o emen ioned si ua ion in he play, Shylock migh be au ho ing Jessica by gi ing he ins uc ions, hus a emp ing o ensu e he con inui y o pa ia chy. Ne e heless, he hie a chical a he -daugh e ela ionship which he Jew may wan o p ese e comes o an end when Jessica decides o lea e he house wi h he Ch is ian Lo enzo. Shylock’s eac ion o his e en is epo ed by Solanio o Sola ino: I ne e hea d a passion so con used, So s ange, ou ageous, and so a iable, As he dog Jew did u e in he s ee s. “My daugh e ! O my duca s! O my daugh e ! (II. iii.12-15) The melod ama ic esponse o he Jew shows he pain which he eels o ha ing los bo h his daugh e and a ce ain amoun o money which has been aken by Jessica. Gi en ha Shylock is a usu e , he migh be sca hingly c i icised o linking such a ma e ial elemen as he duca s o he loss o a ela i e. Howe e , John G oss b ings o he o e Shylock’s humane side by a guing he ollowing: “The one hing abou he ha is no in doub is ha Shylock lo es he . E en he c y ha amuses his enemies so much – ‘O my duca s! O my daugh e ’ – implies ha i he did no lo e he mo e han his duca s, a leas he did no lo e he less” (60). Along he same lines, Julie L. Mell desc ibes he Jew as “an a ec iona e husband and lo ing a he ” (181). Mell’s con en ion poin s o a con e sa ion be ween Tubal and Shakespea e in Ac III, Scene I. In his speci i c dialogue, Tubal announces ha he has no news o Jessica, o which Shylock esponds in an i a ional way by cu sing he : “I would my daugh e we e dead a my oo and he jewels in he ea !” (III.i.84). Wi h ega d o his u e ance, Jesús Co a-Alonso con ends: “When we hea Shylock’s wo ds, we, o cou se, censu e him, we ejec and despise him because he is such an unca ing, unna u al a he , such a ile mise ” (279). Howe e , such a iew does no ake in o accoun ha Shylock has allen p ey o a psychological imbalance caused by he elopemen o his daugh e . This is he iew aken by Ignaz Maybaum, who highligh s bo h Shylock’s diso de and his lo e o Jessica: “The cu sing old man e eals himsel as a man o deep emo ion. He lo es his daugh e . He is he a he be ayed by his child, whom he ne e s ops lo ing” (147). Likewise, I ene Middle on asse s ha Shylock “should be shown as a deeply g ie ing a he ” (301), and John D akakis main ains ha he Jew’s eac ion con eys “ he emo ion o he a he aced wi h he ac ions o a waywa d and un uly daugh e ”, c ea ing “an 126 Alejand o Nadal Ruiz in ensi y o eeling om which spec a o s canno easily de ach hemsel es” (159). The e o e, he mise ly and ill- empe ed Jew depic ed in Shakespea e’s play could also be seen in a sympa he ic way as a g ie ing a he who uly ca es o his unaway daugh e . Hence, his a icle will cas ligh on his nice po ayal o Shylock by explo ing how Jacobson’s no el con ibu es o p esen ing him as an a ec iona e a he . 4. The Po ayal o he Lo ing Fa he in Shylock Is My Name Howa d Jacobson’s no el Shylock Is My Name (2016) e-examines he i gu e o Shakespea e’s Shylock h ough he explo a ion o his iendship wi h Simon S ulo i ch, a weal hy Jewish philan h opis li ing in he Golden T iangle nea Manches e . As Douglas Lanie no es, “Jacobson ne e explains how Shakespea e’s Shylock has come o be in he con empo a y English Midlands, ins ead ea ing his p esence as a na a i e donnée” (“Hoga h” 235). Besides lacking an explana ion o how he six een h-cen u y Vene ian Jew has ansla ed in o a p esen -day Mancunian, his no el ba ely gi es a b oad hin ha he no el’s Shylock is a e-imagina ion o Shakespea e’s Jewish usu e . Wha his ew i ing does e y spo adically is p o ide desc ip ions o s a emen s abou he con empo a y Shylock which eade s who a e amilia wi h he sou ce ex may ul ima ely iden i y as ai s belonging o Shakespea e’s cha ac e . Howe e , hese pieces o in o ma ion a e sca e ed a ound he no el, so his no el pa akes o he Hoga h se ies’ ludic quali y as highligh ed by Muñoz-Valdi ieso. In he cou se o he no el, i is explici ly men ioned ha Shylock is a Jewish cha ac e ha has a sa donic and quick- wi ed look. I is also acknowledged ha his daugh e Jessica has le him in o de o ma y a Ch is ian man. Finally, om he ou se o he no el he e a e e e ences o he ac ha he is a widowe : i is men ioned ha his wi e’s name is Leah and ha she has passed away. Shylock and his iend- o-be S ulo i ch mee in a ceme e y in Sou h Manches e , whe e he o me is alking by he omb o his wi e. F om his momen onwa ds, he no el in e wines he wo cha ac e s’ li es o such an ex en ha i could be a gued ha S ulo i ch can be conside ed Shylock’s double. Fu he mo e, he cons uc ion o his double enables Jacobson o p o ide an in-dep h and inno a i e po ayal o Shakespea e’s Shylock as an a ec iona e a he . The i s piece o e idence ha sugges s a s ong bond be ween S ulo i ch and Shylock is hei ini ial desc ip ions as ang y- looking cha ac e s. The o me is desc ibed as a “ ich, u ious, easily hu philan h opis wi h on-again o -again en husiasms” (Howa d 1), and who is passiona e abou Shakespea e. As ega ds he la e , he ex e nal na a o obse es he ollowing: “An in u ia ed and empes uous Jew, hough his u y ends mo e o he sa donic han he me cu ial” (ibidem). Bo h o hem Alejand o Nadal Ruiz 127 a e p esen ed as moody cha ac e s, and his quali y somehow o eshadows he ac ha hey ha e been hu . In he case o Jacobson’s Shylock, his eeling o being dep ecia ed uns pa allel o ha o Shakespea e’s Jew, who is cha ac e ised by a dismal and g udging a i ude. Howe e , he e is a key di e ence in e ms o mood be ween S ulo i ch and his companion. Whe eas i is sugges ed ha S ulo i ch has unp edic able changeableness o empe , Shylock is mo e whimsical han i a ional. This wi y ai o he la e is o key ele ance o he unde s anding o how his no el p o ides a posi i e po ayal o Shylock: g adually, Shylock’s in elligence con ibu es o making him an exempla y ad ise o he Jewish philan h opis . The e is one elemen ha s eng hens he bond be ween he wo p o agonis s h oughou he no el, and his is hei condi ion o a he s “on whom he bu den o b inging up a daugh e had exclusi ely allen” (idem 55). Whe eas Shylock’s wi e passed away, S ulo i ch’s second wi e su e ed a s oke on he day o Bea ice’s ou een h bi hday and has no been able o e ec i ely communica e since hen. Thei e o s o aise hei daugh e s no wi hs anding, bo h o hem a e e en ually be ayed by hem: hese emale cha ac e s elope wi h wo Ch is ians. In he case o Shylock’s (Jessica), she has al eady le wi h Lo enzo by he ime he na a i e s a s. As o S ulo i ch’s (Bea ice), she decides o elope wi h G a an Howsome, a Ch is ian oo balle who, o make hings wo se, is epo ed o ha e appa en ly gi en he Nazi salu e on he pi ch. Ha ing been neglec ed by hei espec i e daugh e s, so a none o hem has ound a pe son o lean on. In he no el, bo h o hem eel helpless by socie y a la ge, bu a some poin s hey imply ha Ch is ian people should be mo e sympa he ic o hem, and a leas unde s and hei su e ing. In he i s con e sa ion be ween Shylock and S ulo i ch as iends, Shylock con esses: “We lack cha i y, hey say, bu when I an ou o he s ee s calling o Jessica child en jee ed a my dis ess. No cha i able Ch is ian pa en d agged hem home and admonished hem o hei c uel y” (idem 52). Along he same lines, his double S ulo i ch is o en shown as a esen ul man ha bea s a g udge agains he a impo e D’An on: his homosexual a deale is complici in he elopemen o Bea ice wi h he Ch is ian spo sman, hus unde mining he pain ha he Jewish a he is likely o bea . As ega ds he eason why he daugh e s ha e le hei pa en s, in he case o Jessica he no el makes no explici e e ence o why she has abandoned Shylock; he only u e ance ha he no ably silen Jew makes wi h espec o his e en is he ollowing: “Jessica was aken om me. A e Leah’s ing was s olen” (idem 176). This quo a ion sugges s ha Jessica’s elopemen migh be linked o his a he ’s pa ia chal a i ude, since he conside ed he a belonging o be equa ed wi h his wi e’s ing. This ema k migh be misleading, since i implies ha Shylock may s ill be po ayed as a ma e ialis ic man in his 21s - cen u y ew i ing. Howe e , as will be discussed la e on, he no el p o ides enough e idence ha Shylock is a om being a g eedy man. In he case