Sara Coodin’s Is Shylock Jewish? Citing Scripture and the Moral Agency of Shakespeare’s Jews contests historicist interpretations of Shylock as a “product of the Elizabethan anti-Semitic imagination” (9). Instead, she argues, Shakespeare’s audience would have valued Shylock as a Jew with privileged access to the moral content of Hebrew scripture. In The Merchant of Venice, the Genesis narratives to which Shakespeare alludes establish how Shylock “gives voice to a Judaic moral vision intended to counter Christian assertions” (189). It is only by considering Shylock and his daughter, Jessica, through the “multi-vocal” discourse of scripture and rabbinical commentaries, Coodin contends, that we can understand Shakespeare’s nuanced depiction of Jews (18). In chapter 1, Coodin argues that critical presumptions of English anti-Semitism have “helped legitimise the fiction of an English past free from affinity for Jews” (27). Coodin offers a more complex perspective on Shylock by examining contemporary interest in Hebrew scripture and the Hebrew language itself. Henry VIII’s impetus to divorce his wife compelled him to consult rabbinic interpretations; Protestant theologians, Christian Hebraists, and translators viewed Jews not as “well poisoners and ritual murderers” (41) but as scholars and spiritual authorities. Indeed, English institutions of higher education adopted Hebrew as a “third Classical language,” studied “alongside Greek and Latin” (49). Coodin’s argument that “Jewish identity is constructed discursively in [Merchant] through biblical exegesis” (87), however, is not as original as she claims. I do wish she had acknowledged relevant scholarship such as Jeffrey Shoulson’s Milton and the Rabbis: Hebraism, Hellenism, and Christianity and my own Reading the Jewish Woman on the Elizabethan Stage.1 But this avenue of inquiry effectively sets up her investigation of Shylock’s and Jessica’s dilemmas alongside the “moral quandaries” (18) experienced by their biblical counterparts. Shylock’s allusions to the “Genesis Jacob cycle” (128) are the subject of chapter 2. While the Christians view the pound of flesh Antonio promises to Shylock as payment for a forfeited loan as a “mere financial arrangement” (128), for Shylock the flesh bond is occasion to ruminate on monetary transactions between “rival tribes” (128) as Jewish midrash—a discursive mode of inquiry drawing on multiple scriptural commentaries. Shylock analyzes Jacob’s scheme to acquire Laban’s sheep so that he may acquire moral guidance on the practice of charging interest. In Christian typology, Jacob’s plan is divinely orchestrated; thus, Antonio and Bassanio chide Shylock for justifying his usury as a righteous act of his own agency. BOOK REVIEWS 63

中文翻译：

---

夏洛克是犹太人吗？Sara Coodin 引用圣经和莎士比亚犹太人的道德行为

莎拉·库丁的夏洛克是犹太人吗？引用圣经和莎士比亚犹太人的道德代理对夏洛克作为“伊丽莎白时代反犹太想象的产物”（9）的历史主义解释提出异议。相反，她争辩说，莎士比亚的观众会认为夏洛克是一个犹太人，有权接触希伯来圣经的道德内容。在《威尼斯商人》中，莎士比亚所提到的创世记叙述确立了夏洛克如何“表达旨在反驳基督教主张的犹太道德观”（189）。库丁认为，只有通过圣经和拉比评论的“多声部”话语来考虑夏洛克和他的女儿杰西卡，我们才能理解莎士比亚对犹太人的细致入微的描述 (18)。在第 1 章中，库丁认为，英国反犹太主义的批判性假设“有助于使英国过去与犹太人没有亲缘关系的虚构合法化”（27）。库丁通过考察当代对希伯来语经文和希伯来语本身的兴趣，对夏洛克提出了更复杂的观点。亨利八世与妻子离婚的冲动迫使他咨询拉比的解释。新教神学家、基督教希伯来主义者和翻译家并不认为犹太人是“毒害者和仪式谋杀者”（41），而是学者和精神权威。事实上，英国高等教育机构采用希伯来语作为“第三种古典语言”，“与希腊语和拉丁语一起学习”（49）。然而，库丁关于“犹太人身份是通过圣经解经在 [Merchant] 中以话语方式构建的”（87）的论点并不像她声称的那样具有原创性。我真希望她承认相关的奖学金，例如杰弗里·舒尔森的《弥尔顿和拉比：希伯来主义、希腊主义和基督教》以及我自己的《在伊丽莎白时代的舞台上阅读犹太女人》。 1 但这种探究途径有效地建立了她对夏洛克和杰西卡的研究与圣经同行所经历的“道德困境”（18）一起面临的困境。夏洛克对“创世记雅各循环”(128) 的暗示是第 2 章的主题。虽然基督徒认为安东尼奥向夏洛克承诺的一磅肉作为偿还没收贷款的“纯粹的财务安排”(128)，但对夏洛克来说肉身关系是反思“敌对部落”（128）之间的货币交易作为犹太midrash的机会——一种利用多个圣经评论的散漫探究模式。夏洛克分析了雅各布获取拉班羊的计划，以便他可以在收取利息的做法上获得道德指导。在基督教的预表中，雅各的计划是神精心策划的；因此，安东尼奥和巴萨尼奥谴责夏洛克将他的高利贷视为他自己的机构的正义行为。书评 63