Religious Intolerance and Discrimination in Shakespeare and Miller - Essay Example

Religious Intolerance and Discrimination in Shakespeare and Miller The role of religion in the plays The Merchant of Venice and The Crucible are really quite different: in the Merchant of Venice the Jewish religion is used only to a limited degree to control the daughter of the Jew, Shylock, and though the social stigma attached to Shylocks Jewishness is very blatant it does not control him legally. However, the plot of The Crucible revolves around religion and how it is used for other means, especially political. In the Merchant of Venice, religious differences and prejudice are somewhat causal and the resolution of the play does show the power of the state to control. In The Crucible religion is totally responsible for the conflict in the story, as it provides the vehicle through which the characters can hurt each other and it is the driving force behind the law. In the Merchant of Venice we find that the dominant population in Venice is Christian, and that they stereotype and discriminate against Jews. Antonio, especially, has been quite vocal in his abuse of Jews and of Shylock in particular, and further he has made a habit of loaning money interest free just in order to undermine the interest rates at which Shylock can lend money. I am not sure, but it is actually possible that Christians were still not allowed to charge interest on loans in any case, but that is never mentioned. However, when Antonio wants to borrow money from Shylock he is loaned that money interest free, with the price of non-payment being a pound of his flesh. All of this contributes to the stereotype of Jews that the audience likely subscribed to in Shakespeare’s time. They probably laughed at every insult and even cheered when Shylock’s daughter ran away to marry a Christian and took her father’s money with her. We can imagine the parody the actor who played Shylock must have indulged in as the play progressed, exaggerating every movement and mimicking an evil voice, reinforcing the idea of the evil of Jews. The scene where Shylock discovers that his daughter has run away and taken his money would have been quite hilarious to the Elizabethan audience, both because it reinforced the stereotype of Jews who love money over everything and because they would have considered this to be poetic justice. It is still funny to modern audiences, even to those who do not subscribe to the stereotype of “money-grubbing Jews”, simply because the character cannot decide which upsets him more: the loss of his daughter or the loss of his ducats. While we do not know first-hand whether or not Shakespeare actually subscribed to the stereotypical views of Antonio and his friends, he was well aware of how his audience felt and played to that. While religion is not directly responsible for the action in the play, it provides the reason for the anger and hate borne of discrimination. The final resolution of the play, in forcing Shylock to convert to Christianity or lose half of his estate, is somewhat less satisfying today to more cosmopolitan audiences, since the ideas of the superiority of Christians are not as rife as when this play was produced, even among Christians. Besides, to the Elizabethan audience it was understood that the Jew would convert rather than lose money, reinforcing the idea that Jew are insincere and value money over God. The Crucible is more centered around religion than The Merchant of Venice. While religion and religious intolerance and public stereotyping are causes of the difficulty, religion is not the same as the law. It figures in decisions and we can acknowledge that the laws were certainly based upon the prevailing religion, the church did not actually rule Venice. In 17th Century Salem, the church was the government and church rules were law. Because of the deep set fear for their salvation, people actually allowed themselves to be guided by those whom they believed were holy and right with God. It was a time and place of paranoia. In The Crucible, Arthur Miller pointed an accusing finger at both the 17th century theocracy in Salem, Massachusetts, but also at his contemporary government which was then in the throes of McCarthyism. My relatives remember the communist fears of the time, and how some people saw “reds” behind every tree, just as Salem residents saw sin in every deviance for a strict social code. In the Crucible, religion controls every action of the population and the powerful state can be used by those who pervert religion by paltering for their own ends. Religious hysteria becomes mob rule and the justice system has about the same lack of power as an unarmed sheriff at a lynching. It was easy in the time of this play for the audience to see and understand the parallels between the action in the play and the political action of the McCarthy era. Of course, this would only have been discussed in carefully guarded langues even in secure privacy, because people who were blacklisted could have their lives destroyed. It was not as extreme as Salem where condemnation meant hanging, but it carried enough fear to make people hide their true feelings. It is interesting that in Salem, those who confessed were required to accuse others or they were not believed. Miller pointed out how intolerance becomes injustice. In our society we act upon our own perception of stereotypes, often resulting in mistreatment and sometimes even death. Black teenagers have been killed, simply because they appeared more dangerous and threatening to arresting officers. People who are really ill may not get immediate treatment when they are known drug addicts. Even now, people from the Middle East may be mistrusted, due to public hysteria after 9/11. In the play, Miller allows the characters to ascribe their actions to either the Devil or God, eliminating their own personal guilt. They can express their deepest thoughts, as Tituba does. It becomes easy for the characters to become a part of the whole emotional scene. It is exciting, at the very least, to become the center of attention. In addition to acting out their personal grievances, the characters use the religious hysteria to raise their own status, if only for a short time by becoming the representatives of God, the enemies of the Devil. Religion is the main tool for power. Some of the local landowners see an opportunity to increase their wealth, and seemingly do not consider their own guilt in the accusation of innocents. They clearly had no real regard for their souls or somehow convinced themselves that they were right. The men of the pulpit have the most power as long as they have not been proven to be ungodly sinners or agents of Satan. So Proctor has a tremendous amount of power at the beginning. However, at the end he has only the power to refuse to lie, even when the price of truth is death. Both of the plays point to the danger of allowing any government absolute power. In Venice, the court controls life and death. However, in Salem it even controls salvation, according to the tenets of the law to which the citizens have agreed. Difference was suspect and the populace was ruled by fear. Sadly, once the events began to build, there was no turning back, because everyone was caught in the same trap. Proctor had a chance in the beginning to stop the whole series of events, if he had been willing to sacrifice his personal reputation. Once he failed to refute Abigail’s testimony, the following events were carried on by the impetus. Each person who testified for God against Satan or who aligned with the accusers against the sinners did so out of either fear for their own safety or in an emotional reaction to past real or imagined ills. Once this became a concern of the whole village, it acquired a life of its own. Everyone aligned on one side or the other, either because they had grudges to resolve or desires to fulfill, or because they feared for their lives and maybe even their souls. It became impossible to be impartial as lies built upon lies and even telling the truth became useless, because any change affected too many others. It became an “all or nothing” proposition as even the court declared that everyone was either for justice or against it. The religious fervor and public hysteria carried the plot far beyond what anyone had planned in the beginning, but not enough people would recant in the face of danger in order to stop the whole thing. Both of these plays show us examples of how terrible it is to prejudge. They point out that mixing religion with government can only be detrimental to freedom. If everyone were the same religion the conflict would center on something else. In Salem all are supposed to be Christian, but are they good Christians? Any time we give the government the power to decide issues which do not threaten anyone’s life or property we give up the power to decide what we believe is right. Sadly, governments are made up of people and not gods, so they suffer from the same frailty as any other human institution. The prejudice shown in the Merchant of Venice is dangerous to individuals and to the common peace. When people in government become so powerful as those in Salem, these prejudices take on immense importance as they can create a reign of terror as in Salem. True, it was the people of Salem who started the entire series of events, but it was the rigid religious rules which imposed the final condemnation of the whole village. At the end, everyone was either a contributor to the tragedy for their own ends or out of cowardice. Religious intolerance and any kind of stereotyping make really great subjects for powerful plays, because they cause a great deal of emotional response to the possible, and very real, harm such things can do. Read More