"As for myself, I walk abroad of nights And so he goes on to tell all his numerous crimes. In the play, he is made to set two innocent young men upon one another, that they kill each other; he poisons a whole nunnery, kills friars, curses his daughter with curses loud and deep, betrays the city into the hands of the Turks, invents infernal machines wherewith to slaughter all the Turks; so that, in comparison with him, Iago becomes almost a figure of light. He is merely a monster of crime impossible in existence; nothing more nor less. It can be no one's intention to justify him, for he is guilty of well-nigh every crime, imaginable. Black indeed must have been the opinion of the Jews, if such a play of horrors could be even received. But received it was, and that, too, with favor. The greatest actor of the day produced it, and the pit rang with applause; such was the opinion of the unhappy people, whose only crime was that they were a living reproach to the extravagant claims of the religion reigning triumphant. It was written with no conception or study of the Jewish character; not one fundamental trait, except domestic affection, is mentioned, and even that is later subverted. It has retained its place as a classic of the language; and, although its extravagances are no longer believed, still is it proof of that intolerance which "could treat them (the Jews) with an amount of insolence and injustice which, in the eyes of a modern audience, half deprives the Christian of his right of sympathy when the Hebrew's day of vengeance arrives." The Hebrew longs for no day of vengeance; he thanks God that those dark days of bigotry and hatred are past, which made even possible the construction by an author, and the reception by the public, of a production so dark, so monstrous, so unreal, as "The Jew of Malta." III. SHAKESPEARE'S "MERCHANT OF VENICE." Of all the Jewish characters in the domain of English fiction, none is more widely known, or has been the subject of so much discussion, as Shylock, in Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice." Of all the creations of the genius of the world-poet, none, we may say, with the possible exception of Hamlet, the most Shakespearean of Shakespeare's characters, has received greater attention than the Jew as by him portrayed. From all points of view has he been regarded— as the incarnation of wickedness on the one hand, as the injured party seeking redress on the other; as the villain by this critic, as the justifiable plaintiff by that; as the Christianbaiting fire-eater by one, as the ardent defender of his religion and his race by another. His motives, his actions, his character, his every word, have been subjected to examination and criticism, and every one has found something to censure, to excuse, to reprove, to justify, to condemn, to condone. It has been stated that Shakespeare did not intend to give a picture of the Jews in general. We think he did; certain it is, at all events, that the portrayal has always, by the general reader and student, been taken as representative of the Jewish character, and in this light it must be treated. Perhaps in the course of our investigation, contrary to the usual acceptance, we shall find that Shylock was in the right; that the sympathies of Shakespeare were with him; that, in causing him to be defeated by a mere quibble, he demonstrated the strength of his cause, but yet could not permit the Jew to issue victorious over so many noble Christians, in the face of the general feelings entertained toward the Jews at that time-feelings which had received favorably and applauded to the echo the atrocities of the "Jew of Malta." But to the play first; to an analysis of its motives and characters later. In this, as in many of his dramas, Shakespeare took his plot from others; in truth, he combines two stories, that of the Three Caskets, related in the collection of tales known as the "Gesta Romanorum," and that of the Pound of Flesh. This latter story was old, and had appeared in many forms. The first mention we can find of the flesh story is in Hindoo mythology. From there it must have traveled westward, and with the sentiments harbored toward the Jew, was brought into connection with his relations to the Christians. As early as the fourth century, in the time of Elaine, the mother of Constantine, we find it noted. In Europe it gained its foot-hold from the conception that the creditor, according to the Roman law, had full power over the debtor, and could do with him as he pleased. The story appears in eleven different versions, into four of which no Jew is introduced. These are all imaginative productions. There is but one account of this transaction which rests on a historical foundation. This reverses the positions of the Jew and the Christian. In his life of Pope Sixtus V., Gregorio Letti, the biographer, records the following episode: In 1587, Paul Mario Sechi, a merchant of Rome, gained information that Sir Francis Drake, the English Admiral, had conquered San Domingo. He communicated this piece of news to Simone Cenade, a Jewish merchant, to whom it appeared incredible, and he said: "I bet a pound of flesh that it is untrue." "And I lay one thousand scudi against it,” replied Sechi. A bond was drawn up to that effect. After a few days, news arrived of Drake's achievement, and the Christian insisted on the fulfillment of his bond. In vain the Jew pleaded, but Sechi swore that nothing could satisfy him but a pound of the Jew's flesh. In his extremity, the Jew went to the governor. The governor of the city promised his assistance, communicated the case to Pope Sixtus, who condemned both to the galleys-the Jew for making such a wager, the Christian for accepting it. They released themselves from imprisonment by each paying a fine of two thousand scudi toward the hospital of |