The Italian Mask and the English Mirror
How a Small Island Borrowed Venice to Invent Its Soul,
Then Sold It to the World
Between 1590 and 1865, England underwent a psychological
metamorphosis more radical than any political revolution. First, it gazed at
Renaissance Italy with envy and horror—borrowing its settings, its plots, and
its villains to stage plays too dangerous for London. Shakespeare never visited
Italy, yet he set a third of his plays there, using Venice as a mirror for
English anxieties about usury, race, and justice. Two centuries later, England
had become what it once feared: the world's financial engine, inventing paper
money, national debt, and limited liability. The "Jewish" sin of
usury became the Christian engine of empire. Dickens's Our Mutual Friend captured
the hollow aftermath—a society where nothing held intrinsic value anymore. This
article traces that arc from Shylock's pound of flesh to the Veneerings'
worthless paper, arguing that England's greatest literary achievements arose
from constraints it then proudly dismantled.
The Italian Complex – Why Shakespeare Needed Venice
Historians believe William Shakespeare never crossed the
English Channel. Yet over a third of his plays unfold in Italian cities:
Venice, Verona, Padua, Rome, Sicily. This was no accident. Elizabethan England
suffered from what modern scholars call an "Italian Renaissance
complex"—a deep mixture of admiration, envy, and moral panic toward the
peninsula that had invented modern art, banking, and statecraft.
The admiration was genuine. Italian sonnets,
fencing manuals, and conduct books were status symbols. An English gentleman
who had not traveled to Italy was considered provincial. The very word
"Renaissance" arrived in England through Italian texts. Shakespeare
borrowed plots directly from Italian novellas: Othello from
Cinthio's Hecatommithi, Romeo and Juliet from
Bandello's tale of Veronese lovers, The Merchant of Venice from
Il Pecorone's story of a dangerous bond.
The fear was equally real. Italy was also the
land of Machiavelli—whose name became English shorthand for atheistic
scheming—and the Borgias, synonymous with poison and papal corruption.
Anti-Italian sentiment ran so deep that the philosopher Roger Ascham warned in
1570 that an Englishman who returned from Italy had "drunk of the cup of
enchantment" and returned "a devil incarnate." The phrase
"Italianate Englishman" was an insult meaning smooth-tongued,
sexually devious, and untrustworthy.
This contradiction—wanting Italian sophistication while
fearing Italian corruption—gave Shakespeare his dramatic fuel. By setting
dangerous plots in Venice or Rome, he could explore treason, regicide, racial
hatred, and religious hypocrisy without risking the censor's wrath. The Master
of the Revels, who approved all plays, would never allow a scene showing
English senators stabbing the Queen in Parliament. But ancient Romans stabbing
Julius Caesar? That was history. A Jewish moneylender demanding a pound of
flesh in London? Impossible—Jews had been expelled since 1290. That same
moneylender in Venice? Exotic, thrilling, and safely foreign.
The playwright's caution reveals an English psyche that had
internalized surveillance. Elizabethan England was not a totalitarian state,
but it was a society where neighbors reported neighbors, where Catholic plots
like the Babington conspiracy (1586) kept the government perpetually alert, and
where a wrong word could send a playwright to the Tower. Shakespeare's genius
was to transform constraint into art. The Italian setting did not limit him; it
liberated him to write universal truths about power, justice, and love.
The Social Danger – Why Padua Was Safer Than London
for The Taming of the Shrew
Nowhere is this liberation more visible than in the
comedies. The Taming of the Shrew (c. 1592) presents a
husband, Petruchio, who starves his wife, deprives her of sleep, mocks her
before servants, and finally forces her to place her hand under his foot in
public submission. In an English village, this would have been a domestic violence
case. In Padua, it was a farce.
Why? Because English law allowed "reasonable
chastisement" but not brutality. Puritan preachers increasingly advocated
for companionate marriage. The gentry in Shakespeare's audience would have been
horrified to see an English gentleman's daughter publicly humiliated. But Padua
was a university town in the Venetian Republic—famous for courtesans,
hot-blooded husbands, and foreign customs. English travelogues described
Italian men as pathologically jealous and violent. The audience could laugh at
Petruchio because he was not English.
The famous final speech—in which Katherine declares husbands
are "thy lord, thy life, thy keeper"—would have been explosive if
spoken by an English wife. In Padua, it became exotic advice from a foreign
culture. English wives could think, "We're not like that." English
husbands could think, "We're more civilized." The Italian mask
allowed Shakespeare to stage the unstageable.
Even the tailor scene—where Petruchio refuses to pay for a
gown—would have offended London's powerful tailoring guilds if set in England.
But Italian tradesmen? Comic and foreign. The same logic applied to The
Merchant of Venice. A Venetian duke who cannot enforce his own law? That
criticism of English common law would have been seditious. A foreign duke in a
Catholic republic? No problem.
The Religious Shadow – Why Rome Meant Catholicism Without
Blasphemy
The Reformation hung over every line Shakespeare wrote.
England had broken from Rome in the 1530s, but Catholicism survived in secret
pockets. The Spanish Armada of 1588 was within living memory. Executing priests
was routine. To put an English Catholic on stage as a sympathetic figure was
illegal. But an Italian Catholic monk? Acceptable.
This religious displacement appears throughout Shakespeare.
In Othello, Iago's casual cruelty echoes Protestant caricatures of
Jesuit casuistry—the practice of twisting moral rules to fit convenience. His
famous line "I am not what I am" inverts the divine "I am that I
am" from Exodus. The audience would have recognized the echo: this is what
a corrupt Catholic confessor sounds like. In Julius Caesar, the
assassination unfolds like a failed ritual sacrifice, with omens, ghosts, and a
populace that cannot govern itself—exactly what Protestants thought happened
when true religion was abandoned.
Even The Winter's Tale, set in Sicily, uses a
statue that comes to life—a plot device that flirts dangerously with Catholic
veneration of images. But because it happens in "pagan" Sicily, not
Protestant England, it remains poetic rather than blasphemous.
The Financial Pivot – How England Became More Jewish Than
the Jews
The English psyche that had projected usury onto Shylock
could not remain static. By 1694, the year the Bank of England was founded,
Christians had begun doing exactly what they had condemned. The Financial
Revolution transformed England from a borrower of cultural prestige into a
lender to the world.
Key evidence: Under the reign of Elizabeth I,
usury—lending money at interest—was technically illegal for Christians. The
1571 Usury Act allowed rates up to 10 percent but still carried moral stigma.
Moneylending was associated with Jews, who had been expelled in 1290 and would
not be formally readmitted until 1656 under Oliver Cromwell. Shakespeare's
Shylock, therefore, is a ghost: a figure who represents a function English
society needed but could not acknowledge. Antonio, the Christian merchant,
borrows from Shylock while despising him. That contradiction was England's
original sin.
By 1750, everything had inverted. The South Sea Bubble of
1720—a speculative frenzy that crashed spectacularly—taught English financiers
how to build more stable instruments of debt. The national debt became
permanent and tradable. Insurance, futures, and derivatives emerged from London
coffeehouses. The term "Christian usury" became unremarkable. And by
1856, the Joint Stock Companies Act introduced general limited liability,
meaning anyone could invest in anything without risking more than their initial
stake. This was capitalism as we know it—invented not in Venice or Amsterdam,
but in London.
The psychological shift was breathtaking. A
society that had defined moral worth by avoiding "Jewish" practices
now defined moral worth by excelling at them. The English did not merely
tolerate finance; they sanctified it. Evangelical Christians argued that
lending at interest was virtuous if it funded trade and empire. The Biblical
prohibition, they claimed, applied only to punitive lending to
the poor. Productive lending for global commerce? That was God's work.
Dickens's London – Where Nothing Is Real Except Paper
By 1865, when Charles Dickens published Our Mutual
Friend, the transformation was complete. The novel opens with a scene of
financial absurdity: the Veneerings, a nouveau riche couple who have purchased
their way into society, host a dinner party where no one says anything genuine.
Their name is Dickens's cruelest joke—their wealth is veneer,
surface without substance.
The plot revolves around the Harmon estate, a large
inheritance tied to a dust heap—mounds of rotting garbage that, in a perverse
miracle of finance, have become valuable because they can be sifted for
sellable refuse. This is Marx's commodity fetishism made literal: value
attaches to things that are inherently worthless. The dust heap is paper money
incarnate: valuable only because everyone agrees it is.
Where Shylock demanded a pound of flesh—physical, brutal,
tangible—Dickens's financiers demand nothing so solid. They demand
identity. They demand that people become what they own. Mr. Podsnap, a
character based on English self-satisfaction, speaks only in tautologies. Mr.
Fledgeby, a young moneylender, hides behind a facade of respectability while
extracting ruinous interest from the poor. Unlike Shylock, who is openly hated
and openly vengeful, Fledgeby is a coward. He represents the bureaucratization
of usury: cruelty without passion, exploitation without the dignity of a clear
enemy.
The language of the novel reflects its subject. Scholars
have noted that Dickens's sentences become mechanical, circular, almost surreal
when describing financial transactions. Language has become like
money—meaningless until exchanged, valuable only through consensus. In
Shakespeare, money talk is precise, legal, sometimes biblical. In Dickens, it
is nonsense wearing a top hat.
And the women. In Shakespeare, Portia arrives
with mercy and law, restoring order. Jessica escapes her father Shylock's house
and finds happiness. Women are the solution. In Dickens, Bella Wilfer begins
the novel obsessed with money, convinced that "gold, gold, gold" is
the only reality. She must learn—painfully, through humiliation—that value
might inhere in persons rather than prices. Lizzie Hexam flees from Eugene
Wrayburn and only returns when he proves that morality can overcome desire. The
women are searching for value because the world has none to give them. Portia
had the answer. Bella is still looking.
The French Interlude – Why England Stopped Looking to
Italy
Between Shakespeare and Dickens, a crucial stepping stone:
France. Why did England's fixation shift from Italy to France in the century
after Shakespeare? Because England had won.
By 1700, Italy was no longer dangerous. It was a tourist
destination for aristocrats on the Grand Tour—tame, picturesque, past. France
under Louis XIV was the new rival: the most powerful court in Europe, the
source of fashion, philosophy, and military threat. English writers like John
Dryden, Alexander Pope, and William Congreve imitated French forms while
insisting they were improving them. The French fixation was shallower than the
Italian one because England no longer felt inferior—only competitive. "We'll
take your plays, your fashions, your cuisine, but we'll do them better."
That is the posture of a rising power.
But France never replaced Italy entirely. The Italian
Renaissance remained the source code of European civilization. What changed was
England's relationship to that code. In Shakespeare's time, England borrowed
Italian settings because it lacked confidence. By the 18th century, England
borrowed French styles because it enjoyed rivalry. And by the 19th century,
England stopped borrowing altogether—it invented its own aesthetic language,
its own financial instruments, its own imperial ideology.
What the Mirror Shows Us
What does this 250-year arc tell us about the English
psyche? Four durable traits emerge.
First, anxiety about the foreign is inseparable from
hunger for it. The English never simply rejected Italy or France. They
swallowed them, digested them, and excreted them as English property. This is
the psychology of an island: the foreign is a threat, but also the only way to
know oneself. Shakespeare's Venice was London in a mask. Dickens's London was
Venice without the mask—and it was uglier.
Second, moral flexibility is the engine of empire. The
English did not stop believing usury was sinful. They simply redefined sin.
What was "Jewish" in 1596 became "enterprising" in 1696 and
"patriotic" in 1796. This capacity to change moral definitions while
keeping the moral vocabulary intact is perhaps the most characteristic English
talent. It explains how a nation that condemned Shylock could, two centuries
later, build the global financial system on his principles.
Third, constraint produces art; liberty produces
confusion. Shakespeare's Italian mask forced him into indirection,
metaphor, and psychological depth. He could not say "the Queen is old and
England faces a succession crisis." He could only say "an aging Roman
emperor cannot hold his empire together." That constraint made him
universal. Dickens, writing in a relatively freer era, had no such mask. He
could describe London directly—and he did, brilliantly. But Our Mutual
Friend lacks the tight, almost geometric structure of The
Merchant of Venice. Liberty gave Dickens more subject matter; constraint
gave Shakespeare more form.
Fourth, the question of value never goes away. Shakespeare
asked: can a Christian lend money and still be saved? Dickens asked: can anyone
be saved when everything—including people—is just an investment? The first
question has an answer (yes, but only through mercy). The second question
remains open. It is the question of modernity itself. And because it remains
open, we still need literature to ask it.
References
Ascham, Roger. The Scholemaster (1570). On
the dangers of Italian travel.
Burckhardt, Jacob. The Civilization of the
Renaissance in Italy (1860). On Italy's cultural dominance despite
political decline.
Dickens, Charles. Our Mutual Friend (1865).
Passim, especially Book I, Chapters 1-4 on the Veneerings and the dust heap.
Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning (1980).
On Elizabethan identity construction and Italian models.
Gross, John. Shylock: A Legend and Its Legacy (1992).
On the evolution of the usurer figure from Shakespeare to the 20th century.
Hawkes, David. Shakespeare and Economic Theory (2015).
On usury laws, Jewish expulsion, and the Bank of England.
Kamps, Ivo. Shakespeare and the Italian Renaissance (2018).
On specific borrowings from Cinthio, Bandello, and Il Pecorone.
McCloskey, Deirdre. The Bourgeois Virtues (2006).
On the redefinition of usury as enterprise in 18th-century England.
Poovey, Mary. Genres of the Credit Economy (2008).
On paper money, speculation, and literary form in Victorian England.
Shapiro, James. 1599: A Year in the Life of William
Shakespeare (2005). On the Master of the Revels and theatrical
censorship.
Comments
Post a Comment