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