In Shakespeare’s The Merchant …show more content…
The next instance in which Shylock’s actions sharply contrast with that of the Christians becomes one of the major driving forces of the plot: his request for a pound of Antonio’s flesh. This request does not stem directly from his Jewish identity, but rather indirectly as a response to the discrimination that he faces for his religion. Shylock says of Antonio, “You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog, And spit upon my Jewish gaberdine, And all for use of that which is mine own.” While one would not expect a civilized and “pure” citizen to ask for a pound of another’s flesh, Shylock acts in this manner to seek revenge for his treatment as a …show more content…
Bauman addresses this in “Dream of Purity,” stating that:
It is not the intrinsic quality of things which makes them into 'dirt', but solely their location; more precisely, their location in the order of things envisaged by the purity - seekers. Things which are 'dirt' in one context may become pure just by being put in another place - and vice versa. Beautifully polished, shining shoes become dirt when put on the dining table; returned to the shoe - stack, they recover their pristine purity. An omelette, a mouth - watering work of culinary art when on the dinner plate, becomes a nasty stain when dropped on the pillow.
Shylock, even though he is set apart as different, still has his own place in Venetian society. The most obvious role that Shylock plays in this sense is that of the usurer. As the Christians could not pursue that occupation due to their own religious beliefs, the Jews stepped up into that role, and over time became expected to hold that position. By filling the station of usurer, Shylock meets the expectations of “purity” that the society had for Strangers such as himself. This does not render Shylock a “local”, simply a pure