By Rabbi Rachel Esserman

Harry Freedman makes something very clear in his new book “Shylock’s Venice: The Remarkable History of Venice’s Jews and the Ghetto” (Bloomsbury Continuum): the Jews of Venice were treated far better than most Jews in Christian lands during the 16th century, even though the Venetians resented and distrusted Jews, in addition to considering them cursed by God. It was the difference in behavior that made Venice safer: “But unlike in other countries, the Venetians never expelled the Jews. Nor confiscated their belongings. They didn’t slaughter Jewish men, rape women, nor forcibly baptize children.” While that might sound like a very low bar in the 21st century, it was not something to be taken for granted in the 16th century. 

Freedman’s title, “Shylock’s Venice,” is catchy if not exactly accurate. William Shakespeare never visited Venice and it’s unclear if he even knew anyone Jewish because, while he was alive, Jews were not legally allowed to live in England. The sections about “The Merchant of Venice” (which are not a major part of the book) seem as if they belong in a different study. However, it was the title that first caught my attention and gave me the opportunity to learn more about Jewish life in Venice.

Originally, Jews were not allowed to live in Venice. The first Jews arrived in the general area in 1298 and had a their own neighborhood outside of the city. When that area was threatened during a war in 1509, the Venetian government allowed the Jews to move to safety in the city proper. However, after complaints about Jews and Christians mingling socially, all the Jews were moved into one area, which is now called the ghetto. Walls and gates were constructed, and the Jewish population was not allowed to leave during the night, although exceptions were made for specific reasons. That move took place in 1516 and the Jews remained in that area until 1797, when Napoleon Bonaparte conquered Venice, gave the Jewish population equal rights, and had the walls and gates of the ghetto torn down. Although these equal rights were rescinded when the French were forced from the city, the walls and gates were not rebuilt.

Freedman notes that the ghetto did have some positive effects on the Jewish population: it was “easier for like-minded people to meet, debate and share ideas. The few rabbis and scholars in the ghetto took full intellectual advantage of their proximity to each other, and it didn’t take long for Venice to become known as a hub for Jewish scholarship. Within a few years of its establishment, the ghetto had developed into one of Europe’s most important rabbinic centres. For those who had questions about religious belief, about the Bible, Talmud or Jewish law, the Venice Ghetto was where an answer was likely to be obtained. The ghetto became a magnet for inquisitive Jews. And sometimes for Christians seeking a Jewish perspective on an issue they were grappling with.”

This meant that Jews and Christians sometimes worked and/or studied together since some Christians wanted to better understand the Hebrew Bible and create more accurate translations. Talmudic study also flourished, until the Talmud was burned and banned in Italy. It was then that Kabbalah became a major focus of Jewish study. The fact that this occurred in an area where Jews were heavily taxed by the Venetian government, and frequently threatened with expulsion, was amazing. It also meant that life felt precarious, especially since the agreements allowing Jews to continue to live in Venice had to be renewed. In addition to threats not to continue those agreements, there were also increases in the amount of money/taxes that the Jewish community had to pay for being allowed to remain. The negotiations were often fraught for the Jewish population since the Venetian government restricted not only their movements, but what businesses they could participate in and, at times, how much they could charge at those businesses. One form of employment was that of moneylender: the government actually required the Jewish community to have a certain number of money lenders available, but limited the amount of interest they could charge.

However, while some families and individuals prospered, life in the ghetto was not easy. A large percentage of the population was impoverished. There was limited space for housing, so multiple families were crowded into small spaces. The only way to increase space was to build upward, but this made the buildings even less stable than they were before the construction. Yet, as Freedman notes, even with all this, Venice was one of the best places in Europe for Jews to live.

“Shylock’s Venice” is filled with interesting details and individuals. Even readers who are familiar with Italian Jewish history should enjoy reading Freedman’s slant on the material, which offers a new way to consider Jewish life in Venice. While there is not a great amount of detail for Shakespeare fans, the author does include a potentially controversial discussion on whether “The Merchant of Venice” is antisemitic or pro-semitic. That conversation might be worth a book of its own.