Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

remarkable if fragmentary discussion on the nature of usury in the famous Act I. Sc. III, a subject involving a bowuig acquaintance with Canon Law. We have all pondered the question at issue between Anthonio and Shylocke, or rather between the Church and the world. Strange to say, though Shylocke is made to quote the Old Testament, the question is not debated on Biblical principles; both Anthonio and Bassanio deprecate the adduction of Holy Writ: 'The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose' says Anthonio. 'In religion any damned error can be blessed and approved with a text' says Bassanio. However, texts of obvious relevancy are not wanting in the Testaments: "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury (Ex. 22). If thy brother be waxen poor and fallen in decay with thee thou shalt relieve him, yea though he be a stranger or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase (Lev. 25)." Shylocke's defence would have been that the probibition was against taking usury from poor people and particularly poor Israelites: "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother, usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury; Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury, but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury (Deut. 23)." Shylocke I suppose observed that distinction; we may take for granted that those who at times made moan to Anthonio to be delivered from Shylocke's forfeitures, were not Jews. Thomas of Aquino condemned the

310

Sluiten