Hacettepe University 

Graduate School of Social Sciences 

Department of English Language and Literature 
 

 

 

 

 

REVISITING SHAKESPEARE’S PROBLEM PLAYS: THE 

MERCHANT OF VENICE, HAMLET AND MEASURE FOR 

MEASURE 

 

 

 

 

 

Emine Seda ÇAĞLAYAN MAZANOĞLU 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ph.D. Dissertation 

 

 

 

 

Ankara, 2017 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

REVISITING SHAKESPEARE’S PROBLEM PLAYS: THE MERCHANT 

OF VENICE, HAMLET AND MEASURE FOR MEASURE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Emine Seda ÇAĞLAYAN MAZANOĞLU 

 

 

 

 

Hacettepe University 

Graduate School of Social Sciences 

Department of English Language and Literature 
 

 

 

 

 

Ph.D. Dissertation 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ankara, 2017 











v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 For Hayriye Gülden,  

Sertaç Süleyman and  

Talat Serhat ÇAĞLAYAN and  

Emre MAZANOĞLU 

 

 

 

 

 



vi 
 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 

First and foremost, I would like to express my endless gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. A. Deniz 

BOZER for her great support, everlasting patience and invaluable guidance. Through her extensive 

knowledge and experience, she has been a model for me. She has been a source of inspiration for my 

future academic career and made it possible for me to recognise the things that I can achieve.  

 

I am extremely grateful to Prof. Dr. Himmet UMUNÇ, Prof. Dr. Burçin EROL, Asst. Prof. Dr. 

Şebnem KAYA and Asst. Prof. Dr. Evrim DOĞAN ADANUR for their scholarly support and 

invaluable suggestions.  

 

I would also like to thank Dr. Suganthi John and Michelle Devereux who supported me by their 

constant motivation at CARE at the University of Birmingham. They were the two angels whom I 

feel myself very lucky to meet and work with. I also would like to thank Prof. Dr. Michael Dobson, 

the director of the Shakespeare Institute and all the members of the Institute who opened up new 

academic horizons to me.  

 

I would like to thank Dr. Gökçe ZEYBEK KABAKCI and Dr. Hürcan KABAKCI who are my 

‘family’ and have never left me alone since the beginning of my academic career. I feel very lucky to 

have two great people like them by my side. I owe special thanks to Dr. Merve SARI who has not 

only been my colleague and roommate for years but also a sister to me. She shared my happiness and 

made the hardships easier to bear. She encouraged me with her great support in every step of my 

academic life and throughout my PhD.  

 

I am extremely grateful to Dr. Ceren ÖZGÜLER for her never-ending support and motivation. She 

has been a light to me. Moreover, I would like to express my thanks to Dr. Merve ÖZMAN KAYA, 

Res.Asst. Serhan DİNDAR, Res.Asst. Kerim Can YAZGÜNOĞLU, Res.Asst. Hakan YILMAZ, 

Demet YILMAZ and Dr. İmren YELMİŞ for all their support. I also thank Asst. Prof. Dr. Alev 

KARADUMAN, Asst. Prof. Dr. Neslihan EKMEKÇİOĞLU, Dr. Mehmet HENGİRMEN and all the 

distinguished members of the Department of English Language and Literature at Hacettepe 

University. 

 



vii 
 

My deepest gratefulness must also be extended to my family for their constant trust, love and support 

throughout my life. I am deeply indebted to my parents, Hayriye Gülden ÇAĞLAYAN and Sertaç 

Süleyman ÇAĞLAYAN, my brother Talat Serhat ÇAĞLAYAN and my husband Emre 

MAZANOĞLU who never left me alone with their encouragement and patience. Without them, this 

dissertation would not have been possible. I also thank Huriye MAZANOĞLU, İsmet 

MAZANOĞLU and Ece MAZANOĞLU for their great support.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



viii 
 

ÖZET 

 

ÇAĞLAYAN MAZANOĞLU, Emine Seda. Shakespeare’in Problem Oyunlarına Yeniden 

Bakış: The Merchant of Venice (Venedik Taciri), Hamlet ve Measure for Measure (Kısasa 

Kısas). Doktora Tezi, Ankara, 2017.  

 

Julius Caesar (1599), Hamlet (1599-1601), All’s Well That Ends Well (Yeter ki Sonu İyi 

Bitsin) (1601-1602), Troilus and Cressida (Troilus ve Cressida) (1603), Measure for 

Measure (Kısasa Kısas) (1603), Antony and Cleopatra (Antonius ve Kleopatra) (1607) ve 

Timon of Athens (Atinalı Timon) (1607-1608), “problem oyunları”, “karanlık komediler”, 

“trajikomediler” ve “problem komedileri” olarak adlandırılmıştır. Shakespeare’in bu 

oyunları problem yapan özellikler on yedinci yüzyıldan bu yana eleştirmenler ve 

akademisyenler tarafından farklı açılardan ele alınmakta ve tartışılmaktadır. Her eleştirmen 

ve akademisyen, isimlendirme, sınıflandırma ve ortaya atılan soruların çeşitliliği 

bakımından, Shakespeare’in problem oyunları alanına yeni bir boyut getirmiştir. Ayrıca, 

edebi türde belirsizlik, seyirciyi/okuyucuyu tatmin etmeyen belirsiz son, karakterdeki 

problemler ve seyircinin/okuyucunun yorumuna bırakılan özellikle ahlaki soruların ortaya 

atılması bu oyunların farklı özellikleri olarak ele alınmıştır. Oyunların karanlık bir havaya 

sahip olmasına Shakespeare’in kişisel hayatında yaşadığı problemlerin mi, yoksa dönemin 

tarihsel bağlamının mı etkisi olduğu eleştirmenler ve akademisyenler tarafından tartışılmıştır. 

Bu tezin amacı, The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet ve Measure for Measure oyunlarını, 

problem oyunu olarak incelemektir. Bu bağlamda, Birinci Bölüm’de, The Merchant of 

Venice, karakterdeki ve edebi türle ilgili problemler açısından analiz edilmektedir. İkinci 

Bölüm’de, Hamlet, karakterdeki problem bakımından tartışılmaktadır. Üçüncü Bölüm’de ise 

Measure for Measure, adaletin sağlanamaması bağlamında ve edebi türle ilgili problemler 

açısından incelenmektedir. Ayrıca, bu tez, The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet ve Measure for 

Measure oyunlarını sırasıyla yazıldıkları dönemlerdeki dini bağlamda, siyasi bağlamda ve 

adalet anlayışı çerçevesinde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Özellikle Kraliçe I. Elizabeth 

döneminin sonunda, Kral I. James’in yönetiminin başında ortaya çıkan dini, siyasi ve hukuki 

konulardaki sorunların bu oyunlardaki kasvetli havayı yarattığı savunulmaktadır. Ayrıca, 



ix 
 

bağlama ait bu sorunlar, her bölümde ele alınan problemin ortaya çıkışına ya da gelişimine 

zemin hazırlamaktadır. Bu anlamda, The Merchant of Venice oyununun dini bağlamı 

açısından İngiltere’deki Yahudi tarihi ele alınmıştır. Hamlet oyununda, veliaht sorunu ve 

Essex Ayaklanması politik bağlam açısından çalışılmıştır. Son olarak, Measure for Measure 

oyununda, Kral I. James yönetiminin ilk yıllarında adaletin yerini bulmamasına neden olan 

otoriter rejim ve yasaların uygulanmasında karşılaşılan sorunlar siyasi ve hukuki bağlam 

açısından incelenmiştir.  

 

Anahtar Sözcükler: William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet, Measure for 

Measure, problem oyunları, edebi türle ilgili problem, karakterdeki problem, oyunun sonu 

ile ilgili problem, dini bağlam, siyasi bağlam, hukuki bağlam 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



x 
 

ABSTRACT 

 

ÇAĞLAYAN MAZANOĞLU, Emine Seda. Revisiting Shakespeare’s Problem Plays: The 

Merchant of Venice, Hamlet and Measure for Measure, Ph.D. Thesis, Ankara, 2017. 

 

The features which make Julius Caesar (1599), Hamlet (1599-1601), All’s Well That Ends 

Well (1601-1602), Troilus and Cressida (1603), Measure for Measure (1603), Antony and 

Cleopatra (1607) and Timon of Athens (1607-1608) were called “problem plays”, “dark 

comedies”, “tragi-comedies” and “problem comedies”. Shakespeare’s problem plays have 

been discussed by critics and scholars from different perspectives since the seventeenth 

century. Each critic and scholar brought a new dimension to the field of Shakespeare’s 

problem plays in terms of naming, categorisation and types of questions which are raised. 

Various aspects of these plays such as generic ambiguity, uncertain endings which did not 

satisfy the audience/readers, character issues and the presentation of particularly moral issues 

that have been left to the interpretation of the audience/readers were emphasised. In addition, 

whether Shakespeare suffered similar problems in his personal life or whether the historical 

background of the time was influential on the gloomy atmosphere of these plays were 

discussed by the critics and scholars. This dissertation aims at studying The Merchant of 

Venice (1596-1598), Hamlet and Measure for Measure as Shakespeare’s problem plays. In 

this regard, in Chapter I, The Merchant of Venice is analysed in terms of the problems with 

reference to character and genre. In Chapter II, Hamlet is discussed with regard to the 

problem in character. Lastly, in Chapter III, Measure for Measure is studied in relation to the 

problems regarding the abuse of justice, and genre. Furthermore, this dissertation aims at 

analysing The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet and Measure for Measure respectively within the 

religious, political and legal contexts of the periods in which they were written. It is argued 

that the problems in religious, political and legal affairs, particularly, in the last years of 

Elizabeth I’s reign and at the beginning of James I’s rule influenced the bleak tone of these 

three plays. These problems related to the context also establish the ground for the emergence 

and/or the development of the particular problem dealt with in each chapter. In this sense, 

the history of the Jewish people in England is dealt with within the religious context of The 



xi 
 

Merchant of Venice. In Hamlet the succession problem and the Essex Rebellion are studied 

as the political context. Lastly, in Measure for Measure, the authoritarian rule which results 

in the abuse of justice and the problems in the enforcement of law in the early years of James 

I’s rule are analysed within the political and legal context.  

 

Key Words: William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet, Measure for Measure, 

problem plays, problem in genre, problem in character, problem in ending, religious context, 

political context, legal context 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



xii 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

KABUL VE ONAY………………………………………………………………………………... i 

 

BİLDİRİM ……………………………………………………………………………………....... ii 

 

YAYIMLAMA VE FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI BEYANI …………………………….... iii 

 

ETİK BEYAN…………………………………………………………………………………….. iv 

 

DEDICATION …………………………………………………………………………………….. v 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………………………........ vi 

 

ÖZET   …………………...………………………………………………………………………. viii 

 

ABSTRACT   ..……………………………………………………………………………………. x 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. xii 

 

INTRODUCTION  .…………………………………………………………..…………………... 1 

 

CHAPTER I: THE MERCHANT OF VENICE: A PROBLEM PLAY IN TERMS OF  

THE JEWISH PROBLEM AND GENRE ……………………………....................................... 26 

 

CHAPTER II: HAMLET: A PROBLEM PLAY IN TERMS OF THE SUCCESSION 

PROBLEM AND CHARACTER ……………………………………………………………….. 95 

 

CHAPTER III: MEASURE FOR MEASURE: A PROBLEM PLAY IN TERMS OF  

ABUSE OF JUSTICE AND GENRE ...…………………………………………........................ 174 

 

CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………… 260 

 

APPENDIX ………………………………………………………………………....................... 267 

 

WORKS CITED ..………………………...………………………………….............................. 273 

 

EK 1: ORİJİNALLİK FORMU………………………………………………………………... 303 

 

EK 2: ETİK KURUL İZİN MUAFİYETİ FORMU…………………………........................... 305 



1 
 

     

INTRODUCTION 

 

 

 

Shakespeare’s problem plays are different from his history plays, romantic comedies, 

tragedies and romances as they cannot be placed in either of these groups. Along with 

the generic ambiguity, these plays raise various questions in the minds of the 

audience/readers and leave them unanswered. In addition, the endings are problematic 

as they are not satisfactory but ambiguous. Also they can be problematic because of 

character, plot and themes. Various Shakespearean scholars and critics have defined and 

analysed the term problem play, and categorised for different reasons different plays of 

Shakespeare as problem plays throughout the centuries.  

 

The critics and scholars who studied Julius Caesar (1599), Hamlet (1599-1601), All’s 

Well That Ends Well (1601-1602), Troilus and Cressida (1603), Measure for Measure 

(1603), and Antony and Cleopatra (1607) before the late nineteenth century commented 

on the problems in these plays, but they did not label them as problem plays. The views 

of these critics and scholars and the reasons they set for the problematic nature of the 

above-mentioned plays will be reviewed in chronological order. In The Mirror of 

Martyes (1601) John Weever emphasises that the changing attitude of the Roman 

people in Julius Caesar is problematic. For Weever, the Romans do not commit 

themselves to a cause, but they are easily impressed and change their opinions, hence 

they are unreliable (qtd. in Salgado 22). In Troilus and Cressida, Or, Truth Found too 

Late. A Tragedy ... To which is Prefix’d, A Preface Containing the Grounds of Criticism 

in Tragedy (1679) John Dryden puts forth that Troilus and Cressida is problematic in 

terms of the text and the characters. The texts of the play published by the actors and the 

publishers after Shakespeare’s death are not divided into acts and are incorrect (qtd. in 

Vickers, vol.1 250). Furthermore, for Dryden, the two characters, Pandarus and 

Thersites are problematic. Though these two characters initially dominate the play 

through their acts and speeches, they lose their impact towards the end of the play (qtd. 

in Vickers, vol.1 250). On the other hand, in A Short View of Tragedy: It’s Original 



2 
 

Excellency, and Corruption. With Some Reflections on Shakespeare, and other 

Practitioners for the Stage (1693) Thomas Rymer argues that there is a problem about 

the presentation of the historical figures such as Brutus, Cicero and Caesar in Julius 

Caesar. For Rymer, these characters are “the noblest Romans” (148), and Shakespeare 

devalues them in his representation as he “sins not against Nature and Philosophy only, 

but against the most known History” (148). Charles Gildon comments on All’s Well 

That Ends Well in Remarks on the Plays of Shakespeare (1710) and asserts that the plot 

of the play is problematic as there are various inconsistencies between the first and the 

second parts of the play which are set in France and in Italy, respectively (qtd. in 

Vickers, vol.2 244). For Gildon, All’s Well That Ends Well “can’t be call’d natural” 

(244) as the story of the play is far-fetched. Two critics in the eighteenth century, 

George Stubbes and George Steevens emphasise the problems in Hamlet without 

assigning the play to the category of problem play. While Stubbes points at the 

problems in the scenes of Ophelia’s madness in Some Remarks on the Tragedy of 

Hamlet (1736), and finds them “shocking” (qtd. in Vickers, vol.3 61), Steevens 

expresses his discontent with the variety in Hamlet in his letter to David Garrick in 1771 

(qtd. in Vickers, vol.5 456). Steevens expresses that there are both comic and tragic 

elements in the play; however, Steevens calls it a problem: “This play of Shakespeare, 

in particular, resembles a looking glass exposed for sale, which reflects alternatively the 

funeral and the puppet-show, the venerable beggar soliciting charity, and the blackguard 

rascal picking a pocket” (qtd. in Vickers, vol.5 456). In addition, Samuel Johnson finds 

Measure for Measure and Troilus and Cressida problematic as the former is the darkest 

play of Shakespeare (qtd. in Halliday, Shakespeare and His Critics 238), and in the 

latter, Shakespeare is not successful at displaying his dramatic skills and imagination 

(qtd. in Woudhuysen 235). 

 

Moreover, August Willhelm von Schlegel, in his lecture, A Course of Lectures on 

Dramatic Art and Literature which he delivered in Vienna in 1808, puts forward that 

Antony and Cleopatra and Hamlet embody various problems. In Antony and Cleopatra, 

the inconsistencies in Antony’s character are problematic for though Antony enjoys a 

debauched life with Cleopatra in Egypt, he also feels ashamed of this kind of life and 

finds it immoral (qtd. in Bate 262). Moreover, the nature of the relation between Antony 



3 
 

and Cleopatra is open to question because Antony, despite his noble features, easily 

yields to Cleopatra (qtd. in Bate 263). As for Hamlet, it is an obscure play which does 

not provide the audience/readers with particular solutions (qtd. in Bate 370-371). Lastly, 

in a lecture to the St Andrew’s Club for Women in 1839, Julia Wedgwood presents 

similar remarks to those of Thomas Rymer’s, and states that “[t]he representation of the 

world’s greatest statesman by the world’s greatest poet” (qtd. in Thompson and Roberts 

217) in Julius Caesar is problematic. In this sense, she argues that Shakespeare features 

Caesar’s physical and moral deficiencies along with his arrogance, but ignores his 

strength and virtues. 

 

After the late nineteenth century, Edward Dowden in Shakspere: His Mind and Art 

(1875), Frederick S. Boas in Shakspere and his Predecessors (1896), William Witherle 

Lawrence in Shakespeare’s Problem Comedies (1931), E.M.W. Tillyard in 

Shakespeare’s Problem Plays (1951), Arthur Percival Rossiter in Angel with Horns 

(1961), Peter Ure in The Problem Plays (1961), Ernest Schanzer in The Problem Plays 

of Shakespeare (1963), Richard P. Wheeler in Shakespeare’s Development and the 

Problem Comedies: Turn and Counter-Turn (1981), Northrop Frye in The Myth of 

Deliverance: Reflections on Shakespeare’s Problem Comedies (1983), Vivian Thomas 

in The Moral Universe of Shakespeare’s Problem Plays (1987), Richard Hillman in 

William Shakespeare: The Problem Plays (1993), Nicholas Marsh in Shakespeare: 

Three Problem Plays (2003), and Edward L. Risden in Shakespeare and the Problem 

Play: Complex Forms, Crossed Genres and Moral Quandaries (2012) discuss the 

naming, classification, the questions that are raised and characteristics of some of 

Shakespeare’s problem plays. Moreover, they focus on the plays which should be 

included in or excluded from this category. In this regard, the chief features which make 

a play ‘problem play’ have aroused controversy among the aforementioned scholars and 

critics. Though there have been some similarities in their opinions, there are also 

differences in their remarks on the naming, categorisation and characteristics of 

Shakespeare’s problem plays. Robert Ornstein comments on the purpose of the diverse 

critical opinions about the designation and characteristics of Shakespeare’s problem 

plays along with the ambiguous nature of these plays as follows: 

 



4 
 

The ability of the problem comedies to polarize critical opinion raises questions not 

only about the plays themselves but also about the theories and assumptions which 

underlie conflicting interpretations. For example, are the problem comedies 

ambiguous because of the failure of Shakespeare’s art? Or are they deliberately and 

necessary ambiguous because they deal with acts, motives and dedications which 

are at once ideal and impure? Or do they seem ambiguous only because the 

aesthetic, ethical, and psychological assumptions of modern critics lead them to 

discover ironies and ambivalences which Shakespeare never intended? 

(Introduction viii) 

 

As it may be understood from Ornstein’s words, the variety of the opinions of the 

scholars and critics on Shakespeare’s problem plays poses questions not only about the 

nature of these plays but also about the cause of such diversity. In this sense, I will 

present the discussions of the aforementioned scholars and critics on the issue of the 

naming of Shakespeare’s problem plays along with the categorisation and the questions 

which are posed, and the relation between problem plays and Shakespeare’s biography, 

the common characteristics of problem plays while presenting my own comments and 

arguments on the points discussed.  

 

In the Preface to the Third Edition in Shakspere: A Critical Study of His Mind and Art 

(1881), Edward Dowden classifies All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida and 

Measure for Measure as “Later Comedy” and defines them as “[s]erious, [d]ark, 

[i]ronical” plays (x). Moreover, in Dowden’s words, Measure for Measure “is dark and 

bitter” while All’s Well That Ends Well “is grave and earnest” and Troilus and Cressida 

is “strange and difficult” (vi). Furthermore, though Dowden does not classify Timon of 

Athens as a later comedy of Shakespeare, he asserts that there is similarity between 

Timon of Athens and Troilus and Cressida in terms of darkness in tone and content. 

Dowden puts forth the resemblance between the two plays taking into consideration 

Troilus’s frustrated trust in Cressida. Dowden calls Troilus and Cressida a “comedy of 

disillusion” (viii) and comments on the content of Timon of Athens as follows: “Timon 

has a lax benevolence and shallow trust in the goodness of men; he is undeceived, and 

bitterly turns away from the whole human race in a rage of disappoinment” (viii). It may 

be argued that both Troilus and Timon are deceived by the people they depend on and in 

frustration lose their faith in humanity. Another play Dowden compares to All’s Well 

That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida, Measure for Measure and Timon of Athens with 

regards to the darkness in tone is Hamlet (1602). Dowden does not assign Hamlet to a 



5 
 

certain category. Though Dowden classifies Hamlet as a “Middle Tragedy” (x), he 

points at the obscurity of the play which “[i]n point of style […] stands midway 

between [Shakespeare’s] early and his latest works” (111). Morever, Dowden also 

refers to the uncertainty of the issues dealt with in Hamlet, which leads to ambiguity at 

the end of the play because the questions posed in the play are open to the interpretation 

of the audience/readers. According to Dowden, Hamlet is a riddle, hence it is and will 

be impossible to explain the play thoroughly due to the diversity of meanings the play 

offers (112). Dowden further argues that Hamlet is “Shakespeare’s profoundest and 

most sympathetic psychological study” (42). Dowden also asserts that Shakespeare’s 

main concern for all the plays he wrote after Hamlet was “the deep insoluble questions 

suggested by human character and destiny” (42). In this sense, according to Dowden, in 

his dark comedies Shakespeare poses questions, but leaves them unanswered. 

Therefore, it may be deduced that Dowden points at the darkness in tone and of the 

issues dealt with in All’s Well That Ends Well, Hamlet, Troilus and Cressida, Measure 

for Measure and Timon of Athens along with the ambiguous questions posed in Hamlet. 

However, he does not classify these plays as a particular group, and defines their 

distinctness from Shakespeare’s comedies, tragedies, histories and romances by using 

the term “dark”.  

 

Frederick S. Boas is the first critic who uses the term ‘problem play’ which he 

appropriates from nineteenth century drama, especially from the plays of Henrik Ibsen 

and George Bernard Shaw, to refer to Hamlet, All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and 

Cressida and Measure for Measure. Though Boas does not openly state the reason for 

calling the aforementioned plays problem plays, he refers to the problematic issues in 

the structure of these plays and asserts that the best way to address them is to use the 

term ‘problem’ as follows: “[...] as in All’s Well That Ends Well and Measure for 

Measure, the complications are outwardly adjusted in the fifth act. In Troilus and 

Cressida and Hamlet no such partial settlement of difficulties takes place, and we are 

left to interpret their enigmas as best we may” (Shakspere 345). Vivian Thomas, in this 

sense, also argues that Boas uses the term ‘problem’ for some of Shakespeare’s plays 

merely for the sake of the term. She asserts that Boas does not use the term due to the 

close relationship between the plays of Ibsen or Shaw and those of Shakespeare’s but 



6 
 

because of the convenience of using that particular term for the plays which cause 

problems in categorisation (2-3). Simon Barker points at all the critics and scholars who 

use the term ‘problem play’ and asserts that the plays called problem plays are variable, 

and that the critics need to use the term ‘problem play’ to differentiate them from the 

classifications whose structures and contents are more definite like tragedy, comedy, 

history play, or romance (2-3). According to Srinivasa Iyengar, without drawing 

parallels between Shakespeare and Ibsen, Boas thinks that both playwrights have “the 

same tormented restlessness in mind and the same rottenness of sophistication – and so 

he concluded that these so very unconventional plays needed to be grouped separately” 

(Shakespeare 380).  

 

George Bernard Shaw also highlights Shakespeare’s being ahead of his time as a 

playwright in the Preface to Plays: Pleasant and Unpleasant as he refers to All’s Well 

That Ends Well, Measure for Measure and Troilus and Cressida which he calls 

“unpopular plays” (xxii). Shaw emphasises the fact that with these plays, “we find 

[Shakespeare] ready and willing to start at the nineteenth century if the seventeenth 

would only let him” (xxii). Therefore, Shaw indicates clearly that the aforementioned 

plays are different from Shakespeare’s other plays in different genres, and it is 

necessary and fundamental to treat them differently.  

 

Furthermore, Boas highlights the difficulty of labelling these plays as comedy, tragedy, 

romance, or history play as follows: “Dramas so singular in theme and temper cannot be 

strictly called comedies or tragedies. We may therefore borrow a convenient phrase 

from the theatre of today and class them together as Shakespeare’s problem-plays” 

(Shakspere 345). Hence, it may be said that Boas refers to the variety in content and 

structure of these plays. He asserts that categorising them as either tragedy or comedy 

limits their contents and structures as there are both tragic and comic elements in them.  

 

Boas’s remarks on the contents of Hamlet, All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and 

Cressida and Measure for Measure are broader than those of Dowden’s. Boas focuses 

on the problems suffered by the societies presented, the feelings created in the 

audience/readers, and the unsettled issues at the end of these problem plays. For Boas, 



7 
 

the societies reflected in problem plays are degenerate, which affects the psychological 

and mental health of the people, and complex problems created in these societies require 

unusual means to reach a solution (Shakspere 45). As a matter of fact, Boas stresses the 

problems the societies presented in Hamlet, All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and 

Cressida and Measure for Measure embody. It may be argued that in All’s Well That 

Ends Well the collapse in Rousillion because of the illness of the King and the wars, in 

Troilus and Cressida the decadence in Troy due to the long-standing war between the 

Trojans and the Greeks and the conflicts among the Trojan and Greek heroes strengthen 

Boas’s argument. In All’s Well That Ends Well, the King’s ill health at the beginning of 

the play and the Tuscan wars between “[t]he Florentines and Senoys” (I.ii.1) in which 

the French nobles are expected to be a party, indicate that the people of Rousillion 

endure various problems. The King’s illness is presented at the opening of the play as 

Countess of Rousillion asks, “[w]hat hope is there of his Majesty’s amendment?” 

(I.i.11). Lafew’s answer demonstrates that there is no hope for the King until Helena’s 

intervention: “He hath abandoned his physicians, madam, under whose practices he hath 

persecute time with hope, and finds no other advantage in the process but only the 

losing of hope by time” (I.i.12-15). In Troilus and Cressida, the war caused by the 

abduction of Helen by Paris signals the problems encountered in Troy. In this regard, 

the heavy losses of Troy may be clearly seen in Hector’s following speech in the 

council in Troy: “Let Helen go: / Since the first sword was drawn about this question, / 

[...] / If we have lost so many tenths of ours, / To guard a thing not ours nor worth to us” 

(II.ii.17-22). In addition, as Boas further puts forth, “[...] throughout these plays we 

move along dim untrodden paths, and at the close our feeling is neither of simple joy 

nor pain; we are excited, fascinated, perplexed, for the issues raised preclude a 

completely satisfactory outcome [...] (Shakspere 345). Hence, Boas refers to the sense 

of uneasiness aroused in the audience/readers at the end of the aforementioned plays as 

it may be stated that the endings are not convincing because they leave various 

questions in the minds of the audience/readers. In this respect, although All’s Well That 

Ends Well ends with the marriage of Helena and Bertram, it is unclear whether they 

truly love each other. Helena’s tricks throughout the play raise doubts in the minds of 

the audience/readers about her intentions, which will be dealt with in detail in the 

analysis of All’s Well That Ends Well. Similarly, at the end of Troilus and Cressida, on 



8 
 

one hand, the audience/readers have doubts about Cressida’s infidelity and question 

whether she truly loves Troilus; on the other hand, they lament Hector’s tragic death 

and question Achilles’s murder of Hector. Thus, while Cressida expresses her in-

betweenness while she is giving the token of Troilus to Diomedes as she says, “ ’Twas 

one’s that lov’d me better than you will. / But, you have it, take it” (V.ii.88-89), 

Troilus’s words grieve the audience/readers as he laments Hector’s death as follows: 

“He’s dead; and at the murderer’s horse’s tail, / In beastly sort, dragg’d through the 

shameful field” (V.x.4-5). 

 

As opposed to Dowden and Boas, William Witherle Lawrence excludes Hamlet, and 

categorises All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida and Measure for Measure 

as Shakespeare’s problem plays. He emphasises the unity of these plays in terms of tone 

and structure as he accounts for labelling the three plays as problem plays in the 

following words: “While they were composed, no doubt, in alternation with other work, 

they resemble each other closely in style and temper, and may be conveniently studied 

together” (20). In addition, like Boas, Lawrence refers to the generic ambiguity of 

problem plays, and he highlights the difficulty of classifying these plays. As Lawrence 

notes, “[t]he term ‘problem play’, then, is particularly useful to apply to those 

productions which clearly do not fall into the category of tragedy, and yet are too 

serious and analytic to fit the commonly accepted conception of comedy” (22). Thus, as 

may be deduced from his words, Lawrence refers to the importance and necessity of 

putting these plays in a new category, which is ‘problem plays’. In this sense, he also 

explains the reason for excluding Hamlet from this classification in contrast to the 

groupings of Dowden and Boas. According to Lawrence, if a problem play has tragic 

elements, it is still possible to classify it as problem play, but if a tragedy has the 

features of a problem play, it is hard to classify it as a problem play (22). To put it more 

clearly, Lawrence expresses that classifying a tragedy as a problem play may create an 

ambiguous and a problematic situation which Lawrence aims to avoid in his own 

grouping. Therefore, Lawrence classifies Shakespeare’s problem plays considering the 

genre, and therefore, Hamlet should not be classified as a problem play because it can 

be definitively categorised as a tragedy. As for the questions posed in the problem 

plays, Lawrence focuses on the ethical questions raised but left unanswered as follows: 



9 
 

 

The essential characteristic of a problem play, I take it, is that a perplexing and 

distressing complication in human life is presented in a spirit of high seriousness. 

This special treatment distinguishes such a play from other kinds of drama, in that 

the theme is handled so as to arouse not merely interest or excitement, or pity or 

amusement, but to probe the complicated interrelations of character and action, in a 

situation admitting of different ethical interpretations. The ‘problem’ is not like one 

in mathematics, to which there is a single true solution, but is one of conduct, as to 

which there are no fixed and immutable laws. Often it cannot be reduced to any 

formula, any one question, since human life is too complex to be so neatly 

simplified. (21-22) 

 

As indicated above, Lawrence maintains that the main subject matter of problem plays 

is human life which is full of intricate and painful situations reflected in a serious tone. 

Moreover, human experiences presented in the plays do not only create a sense of 

wonder and pity in the audience/readers but also provoke moral questions on both the 

nature of the character and her/his actions. Rossiter supports Lawrence’s opinions 

related to the questions in the problem plays and says: “Lawrence’s discussion has the 

great merit of containing a precise, clear, and, above all, an acceptable definition of 

what constitutes a problem play” (3). Furthermore, like Boas, Lawrence asserts that the 

problems examined in problem plays have various solutions which are all open to 

diverse interpretations as there are a number of questions asked in these plays and there 

are various ways to interpret these questions in relation to the complexity of human life. 

 

E.M.W. Tillyard agrees with Dowden and Boas but differs with Lawrence as he 

includes Hamlet in the category of problem plays. He also classifies All’s Well That 

Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida and Measure for Measure as problem plays. First, he 

evaluates the terms used by the critics like ‘dark comedies’ and ‘problem comedies’ for 

All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida and Measure for Measure, and 

‘satirical comedy’ for Troilus and Cressida but he maintains that when Hamlet is 

included in the group, an inclusive name, which is ‘problem play’, is necessary (9).  

 

In addition, Tillyard expresses that he uses the term ‘problem play’ “vaguely and 

equivocally; as a matter of convenience” (9) to find the best definition which fits the 

plays he discusses as problem plays. He further claims that the term can be interpreted 

in various ways and its scope has to be limited. Therefore, unlike Dowden, Boas and 

Lawrence, he uses a comparison in order to describe the content of Shakespeare’s 



10 
 

problem plays. He compares the problem play to a problem child and states that there 

are two kinds of a problem child: “[...] first the genuinely abnormal child, whom no 

efforts will ever bring back to normality; and second the child who is interesting and 

complex rather than abnormal” (10). In this regard, he puts All’s Well That Ends Well 

and Measure for Measure into the former category as these plays “are [themselves] 

problems”, and cannot be normalised, but the problem of Hamlet and Troilus and 

Cressida results from the “interesting problems” they present (10). Risden finds 

Tillyard’s definition functional as “it opens the field for re-examination” (4) and brings 

a new perspective to the study of Shakespeare’s problem plays. Thus, I also believe that 

Tillyard’s definition is useful and constructive to comprehend the contents of problem 

plays thoroughly. And it is also noteworthy to state that interesting and complex issues 

are also dealt with in All’s Well That Ends Well and Measure for Measure. At the end of 

All’s Well That Ends Well Helena’s ambiguous intentions and Bertram’s problematic 

transformation, in Measure for Measure the choice Isabella has to make to save her 

brother’s life, and Angelo’s cruel attitude towards Claudio and his abuse of the judicial 

system raise various interesting and complex questions. Moreover, unlike Boas and 

Lawrence, Tillyard does not explicitly clarify the nature of the problems presented in 

problem plays but he reduces them to “interesting problems” (10). However, he also 

touches upon the significance of the moral statements particularly in All’s Well That 

Ends Well and Measure for Measure. According to Tillyard, in All’s Well That Ends 

Well, the two French lords, and in Measure for Measure, Escalus and the Provost make 

moral statements (17). On the other hand, Tillyard maintains that the way morality is 

presented in Troilus and Cressida is different because “[...] the morality is not conveyed 

through any one person or set of persons. It is rather choric and to be gathered from 

what a number of people say when they are least themselves and most rhetorical mouth 

pieces” (17). Similarly, in Hamlet, the speeches of a single character such as Horatio or 

a group of characters put forward the moral messages (17). In this regard, while in All’s 

Well That Ends Well and Measure for Measure the characters embody moral aspects 

and reflect them not only in their words but also in their acts, in Hamlet and Troilus and 

Cressida, the morality is merely in the words of the characters as it is not reflected in 

their behaviour.  

 



11 
 

A.P. Rossiter, as in Lawrence’s discussion of Shakespeare’s problem plays, considers 

All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida and Measure for Measure according to 

the generic terms. However, he differs from Lawrence as he calls the aforementioned 

plays ‘tragi-comedy’ because it is possible to argue that the feelings problem plays 

create in the audience/readers develop out of “the tragi-comic view of man” (116). 

Rossiter defines tragi-comedy in various ways such as “[a] refusal or failure wholly to 

credit the dignity of man”, “[a]n emphasis (comic, derisive, satiric) on human 

shortcomings, even when man is engaged in great affairs”, “[a]ny trends towards 

suggesting that there is usually another side to all human affairs, and that the ‘other 

side’ to the serious, dignified, noble, famous and so forth, is comic”, “[a]ny trend in the 

direction of expressing unhappiness, disappoinment, resentfulness or bitterness about 

human life” and “[...] the stock response to [traditionally funny subjects] by-passes pain 

at human shortcomings or wickedness” (116-117). Therefore, in Rossiter’s 

classification of problem plays, the defects and the noble sides of man are presented 

simultaneously. Furthermore, the serious and the comic intersect with each other. In this 

sense, it may be deduced that as opposed to Dowden, Boas and Tillyard, Rossiter places 

more emphasis on the generic ambiguity in All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and 

Cressida and Measure for Measure.  

 

For the questions in the problem plays, Rossiter refers to the psychological and moral 

problems they present. He asserts that a particular expectation has already been created 

in the audience/readers by the discussions of the former Shakespearean critics and 

scholars about the categorisation of All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida 

and Measure for Measure. Hence, Rossiter argues that he should consider the 

inclination of the audience/readers and deal with “glooms, disillusions, moral dilemmas 

and artistic perplexities, vexed questions of human psychology and behaviour” reflected 

in the aforementioned problem plays (108). Moreover, Rossiter also touches upon the 

ambiguity created at the end of problem plays, and he argues that they generate a 

discussion about certain issues while they do not provide satisfactory solutions (128). In 

other words, problem plays arouse a wide variety of challenging thoughts, but they do 

not present satisfying and established endings which provide reconciliation. In 

Rossiter’s words, “[t]hey are all about ‘Xs’ that do not work” (128). In this regard, 



12 
 

Rossiter illustrates his argument about the ambiguity at the end of the problem plays 

through examples from the three problem plays: “Troilus and Cressida gives us a 

‘tragedy-of-love’ pattern that is not tragic (nor love?); All’s Well a ‘happy ending’ that 

makes us neither happy nor comfortable; Measure for Measure a ‘final solution’ that 

simply does not answer the questions raised” (128).  

 

With respect to the naming and classification of Shakespeare’s problem plays, Peter Ure 

adds a new play, which is Timon of Athens, to his classification. On the other hand, Ure 

keeps All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida and Measure for Measure. Like 

Boas, Lawrence and Tillyard, he also uses the term ‘problem play’ to categorise the 

mentioned plays. Ure points out that Boas found similarities between particular plays of 

Shakespeare and those of Ibsen’s which examine the inequalities in society and the 

extent people are affected by them, and so,  Ure preferred to use the term ‘problem 

play’. However, though Ure does not wholly approve of this correlation, he still 

supports that ‘problem play’ is the best term which can be applied to the plays in 

question (7). Ure includes Timon of Athens in this category due to the lack of 

compatibility between the characterisation and the action of the play, and the problems 

in the presentation of moral questions. According to Ure, Shakespeare’s portrayal of the 

characters in the play is weak while the action is not complicated enough, hence the 

characterisation and the action do not complement and improve each other (45). In this 

sense, though Shakespeare aimed to equate Timon with Othello and Lear in terms of the 

characteristics of the tragic hero, the story of the play remains incapable in creating such 

a powerful character (Ure 45). Moreover, as Ure argues, there is inconsistency between 

the first part of the play, which, according to him, is the first three acts, and the second 

part of the play, which is the last two acts. The events in the first three acts are linked to 

the moral lessons on lavishness, ungratefulness and flattery and they are generalised as 

it is possible for every person to be exploited by self-seeking and adulatory people. 

However, in the last two acts, the main focus shifts from moral lessons towards Timon’s 

experiences which are unique to him (49). In a sense, the first three acts present moral 

issues that are for everybody as they illustrate the general condition and experiences of 

man while the last two acts are more specific as they reflect Timon’s personal 

experiences and transformation into a fierce misanthrope. In the last two acts, Timon 



13 
 

hates not only all mankind but also the animals and nature, which creates a sense of 

despair and astonishment in the audience/readers (50).  

 

As regards the structure of the problem plays, Ure is mainly concerned with the 

endings. They are doubtful as they give rise to multiple interpretations, and problem 

plays pose intellectual questions which lead the audience/readers to speculate on the 

endings (52). Moreover, the characters in problem plays act in such a way that they are 

conscious of “their own fictive nature” (52), and hence, they incorporate reality and 

imagination. Ure, also, asserts that the problem plays functioned as “Shakespeare’s 

experiments”, and Shakespeare used what he had learned from these plays as a 

playwright to write plays that were more powerful in dramatic structure and 

characterisation (52). In other words, his problem plays served as a school for 

Shakespeare where he developed his artistic skills. In this sense, All’s Well That Ends 

Well guided Shakespeare towards Measure for Measure, while Timon of Athens served 

as a model for King Lear (52).  

 

Different from all the scholars and critics mentioned above, Ernest Schanzer makes a 

new classification, which Vivian Thomas defines as “a direct challenge” or “attaching 

[the term problem play] to an unusual triumvirate” (10). Schanzer exludes Hamlet, All’s 

Well That Ends Well and Troilus and Cressida from the previous group of problem 

plays and instead includes Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra in the 

categorisation while keeping Measure for Measure. Schanzer explains the reason for 

making a new categorisation in the Preface to The Problem Plays of Shakespeare (1963) 

as follows:  

 

This book has been written out of a feeling of acute dissatisfaction – which I share 

with many students of Shakespeare – with the common grouping together All’s 

Well, Measure for Measure, Troilus and Cressida, and sometimes Hamlet, as 

Shakespeare’s Problem Plays. It seeks to define the term ‘problem play’ more 

narrowly and precisely than has been done in the past and to apply it to a largely 

different group of plays, which it seems to fit more adequately. Measure for 

Measure remains, but to it added Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra [...]. (ix) 

 

With these lines, Schanzer asserts that designating All’s Well That Ends Well, Hamlet, 

Troilus and Cressida and Measure for Measure as Shakespeare’s problem plays 



14 
 

narrows down the extent of the term ‘problem play’, and he considers that Julius 

Caesar, Measure for Measure and Antony and Cleopatra fit the meaning of the term. In 

this sense, he criticises Dowden for being “chiefly responsible for imposing [All’s Well, 

Troilus and Cressida and Measure for Measure as Shakespeare’s problem plays] upon 

the minds of later generations, so that it has become an almost unquestioned dogma that 

these three plays are to be classed and studied together” (187). According to Schanzer, 

the common feature which makes Julius Caesar, Measure for Measure and Antony and 

Cleopatra problem plays is the “[...] double vision and the divided, problematic 

response” of the audience/readers to the main characters and incidents in the plays 

(184). In Schanzer’s words, “[...] what to one side of our minds appears as [characters’] 

main flaws, to another side appears as their great virtues. This seems particularly true of 

Antony, but also applies to Brutus and Isabel” (184). In Julius Caesar, Schanzer refers 

to the obscure nature of Caesar’s character as it is not definitely presented whether he is 

a dictator or an ideal ruler who falls victim to a false conspiracy (32). Similarly, the 

character of Brutus raises questions in the play as he suffers from dilemmas about the 

rightfulness of Caesar’s murder throughout the play (46). As for Antony and Cleopatra, 

Schanzer finds “its structural pattern” (132) problematic and argues that studying the 

structure of the play is fundamental in comprehending the problems posed about the 

characters of Antony and Cleopatra. As Schanzer puts forward, “the structure of 

Shakespeare’s plays, comedies and tragedies alike, is not linear but multilinear, not 

based on a unity of action but on a unity of design”, which is a method that was applied 

by many Elizabethan playwrights (132). However, Shakespeare manages to maintain 

unity in the plot and the characters of his plays by comparing and contrasting the 

characters and cases (133). In other words, he either draws analogies between the 

characters and instances or demonstrates the discrepancies between them. In this sense, 

in Antony and Cleopatra, the differences between Rome and Egypt and the similarities 

between the characters of Antony and Cleopatra raise questions (133). Particularly, in 

the last two acts of the play, according to Schanzer, Antony and Cleopatra resemble 

each other in words and deeds while the discrepancy between the West and the East 

decreases (134).  

 



15 
 

Regarding the questions raised in the problem plays, for Schanzer, a problem play is 

“[a] play in which we find a concern with a moral problem which is central to it, 

presented in such a manner that we are unsure of our moral bearings, so that uncertain 

and divided responses to it in the minds of the audience are possible or even probable” 

(6). Schanzer restricts the problems reflected in Shakespeare’s problem plays merely to 

moral problems as he excludes the social, political, legal, religious, metaphysical and 

psychological problems. In addition, he emphasises that the audience/readers doubt 

their own moral values while reading or watching a problem play. This doubt of moral 

bearings should be accompanied with a central moral problem which emerges in the 

play, and it should make the audience/readers think about their own views on moral 

values. Furthermore, Schanzer also explains the reason for making a new categorisation 

of Shakespeare’s problem plays while he reveals his ideas on the questions in the 

problem plays. He asserts that in All’s Well That Ends Well, both Helena herself and the 

audience/readers are sure of her intentions about Bertram as throughout the play she 

tries to win Bertram, which is “ ‘difficulty’ rather than ‘moral perplexity’ ” (7). In 

Troilus and Cressida, according to Schanzer, the only moral problem is to decide 

whether to return Helen to the Greeks, which does not create any moral doubt in the 

audience/readers (7). However, in Hamlet, Schanzer argues that the nature of the 

problem dealt with does not create a moral uncertainty in the audience/readers as it is a 

psychological problem (8).  

 

Richard Wheeler considers All’s Well That Ends Well and Measure for Measure as 

‘problem comedies’, and he argues that they bear common characteristics with 

Shakespeare’s festive comedies and romances though they cannot be definitely 

classified in either group (1). For Wheeler, both plays are more realistic than 

Shakespeare’s romantic comedies, and though in some incidents the characters are 

subordinate to the action, in other incidents, the characters are more in the foreground 

(1). Wheeler also argues that the critics and scholars who have studied Shakespeare’s 

problem plays before him were not precisely content with terms like ‘problem play’ or 

‘problem comedy’, but they need to use them to distinguish the problems the plays 

embody (2).  

 



16 
 

As regards Shakespeare’s problem comedies, Wheeler also emphasises two points: the 

uncertainty of genre and the conflicts which are left unresolved at the end of the plays. 

In terms of genre, he argues that Shakespeare wrote in various genres and made shifts 

between different genres throughout his dramatic career, and he advanced in his use of 

each genre (4). Hence, All’s Well That Ends Well and Measure for Measure have 

characteristics of Shakespeare’s early comedies; they are also parallel to his romances in 

the way of using comic elements; and they present serious issues that Shakespeare’s 

tragedies written at the beginning of the 1600s deal with (4). With regard to the 

unsettled conflicts presented at the end of All’s Wel That Ends Well l and Measure for 

Measure, Wheeler notes that Shakespeare’s romantic comedies conclude with affection 

between the lovers and social reconciliation; however, the problem comedies cannot 

provide convincing endings as the struggle between the debased lust and the social 

order where ethics are valued is not resolved (3).  

 

Like Wheeler, Northrop Frye designates All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and 

Cressida and Measure for Measure as ‘problem comedies’ because he finds the term 

‘problem play’ unfitting. For Frye, though Troilus and Cressida should be considered in 

a distinct group due to its experimental nature, All’s Well and Measure for Measure do 

not completely differ from Shakespeare’s romantic comedies (3). In this regard, in 

Frye’s words, “[m]any of the critics who first called them problem plays imposed what 

[he] consider[s] a pseudo-problem on them [...]” (3). However, Vivian Thomas 

disagrees with Frye and he argues that Frye “dismisses such issues as ‘realistic’ nature 

of the problem plays and their concern with ‘serious’ social issues as a ‘pseudo 

problem’ ” (10). In a sense, Thomas asserts that the questions which are posed about the 

social issues in Shakespeare’s problem plays should not be underestimated as ostensible 

problems.   

 

According to Frye, All’s Well That Ends Well and Measure for Measure resemble 

Shakespeare’s romantic comedies though they are not conventionally categorised as 

such (61). Moreover, Frye compares the bed trick used in both plays to the magical 

forests where the lovers are united, or the twins who are separated find each other at the 

end of Shakespeare’s romantic comedies like A Midsummer Night’s Dream or The 



17 
 

Merry Wives of Windsor (3). On the other hand, he defines Troilus and Cressida as “an 

experimental play in a special category” (3) as it bears the characteristics of comedy, 

tragedy, history play and romance at once (62). However, Frye’s comparison of the 

problem plays with the romantic comedies is criticised by Vivian Thomas who argues 

that though it is possible to find similarities between the two types of plays in terms of 

structure, it is impossible to compare them in terms of the worlds they present (12).  

 

In this regard, Thomas considers All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida and 

Measure for Measure as problem plays and comments on the classification and the 

content of these plays laying stress on the generic ambiguity, the questions posed 

throughout the plays and the open-endedness as follows:  

 

The term problem play is here used to encompass three plays which defy 

absorption into the traditional categories of romantic comedies, histories, tragedies 

and romances, but share striking affinities in terms of themes, atmosphere, tone and 

style. In particular, they explore fundamental problems relating to personal and 

social values within a framework which makes the audience acutely aware of the 

problems without providing amelioration through the provision of adequate 

answers or a dramatic mode which faciliates a satisfactory release of emotions. 

(21) 

 

Therefore, Thomas primarily highlights the difficulty of categorising problem plays as 

comedies, tragedies or histories. In this sense, he focuses on the difficulty of classifying 

problem plays in a certain genre. Then, he emphasises the common points the plays 

share in terms of themes, the seriousness in atmosphere and tone, and structure. As 

Thomas also asserts, these plays provoke various and difficult questions on social and 

personal matters, and leave it to the audience/readers to make distinct interpretations. In 

Thomas’s words, the sense that is created in the audience/readers at the end of problem 

plays is “incongruity” (15) as the complications the characters go through throughout 

the plays do not come to an end, and the audience/readers contemplate the problematic 

relationships between the characters and the institutions (15). However, it may be said 

that Thomas, like Schanzer, does not present an inclusive approach towards the nature 

of the questions raised in the problem plays as he focuses on only social and personal 

questions.  

 



18 
 

Similar to Thomas, in his comments on the contents of the problem plays, Richard 

Hillman puts emphasis on the unresolved questions dealt with in these plays. For 

Hillman, the common point connecting All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida 

and Measure for Measure is the lack of a resolution provided at the end of the plays. In 

Hillman’s view, the problematic situations are present in all of Shakespeare’s plays 

written throughout his career but in the plays except All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus 

and Cressida and Measure for Measure, solutions are offered at the end of problematic 

situations; whereas, in the abovementioned plays, fulfilling resolutions are not provided 

(5). In addition, like Frye, Hillman correlates between problem plays and Shakespeare’s 

romantic comedies, yet unlike Frye, he makes a distinction between them stressing the 

realistic nature of problem plays. In Hillman’s words, “[n]one of the Problem Plays 

employs the two-world principle (court vs. Natural or “green” world), as found in 

comedies ranging from the The Two Gentlemen of Verona to As You Like It, although 

intriguing vestiges exist in all three of them” (7). In other words, as opposed to 

Shakespeare’s romantic comedies, in problem plays, there is not a place where the 

characters escape from realism and enter a romantic world where all the contradictions 

are magically solved, and the lovers come together leaving the obstacles preventing 

their union behind (7). Furthermore, supporting the realistic nature of the problem plays, 

Hillman touches upon the significance of the nature of the marriages presented in these 

three plays as the couples do not get married at the end due to love, or in Hillman’s 

words, to provide “[t]he identification of sexual consummation with marriage”. Yet, 

marriage functions “as a closure motif” rather than “the emblem of romance 

fulfillment”, and “is invested with connotations of emptiness, futility, [...]” (7).  

 

Similar to Dowden’s approach, Nicholas Marsh asserts that his main concern is not to 

put All’s Well That Ends Well, Measure for Measure and Troilus and Cressida into a 

particular group contrary to the earlier critics and scholars (1). For Marsh, although the 

composition dates of the three plays are close, and there are similarities between them 

as regards characterisation and action, they are still three different plays, and any 

attempt to put them into the same category will be futile (2-3). Thus, it may be said that 

Marsh does not attribute a specific category to the aforementioned plays, which is a 



19 
 

completely different approach towards Shakespeare’s problem plays in relation to the 

issues of naming and classification.  

 

According to Edward L. Risden, almost all of Shakespeare’s plays have problems in 

relation to genre so that the classification of ‘problem comedies’ cannot be restricted to 

particular plays (1). In this regard, Risden deals with the plays he defines as 

“Shakespeare’s most difficult plays” (2) in order to demonstrate the structural pattern of 

these plays and how they create meanings. As Risden argues, labelling a play as 

tragedy, comedy, romance, or history directs the reading process and has an impact on 

the audience’s/readers’ anticipation and the nature of their interpretation (3). In this 

regard, the audience/readers know beforehand that if a play is a tragedy, the characters 

will suffer from dreadful experiences; if it is a comedy, comic events will dominate the 

lives of common people; if it is a romance, magical and extraordinary incidents will 

take place; and if it is a history, historical characters and events will be the major issue. 

However, if the audience/readers cannot be certain about the nature of the ending of a 

play, or cannot feel pity and fear at the end of a play, the problem of how to label the 

play arises (3). Thus, what Risden proposes in his study of Shakespeare’s problem plays 

is that, apart from the conventionally classified problem plays, Shakespeare’s other 

plays may also present problems when they are evaluated according to generic 

ambiguity. In this sense, as Risden notes, “[...] if we read any or all of the plays as 

problem plays, each one opens up with new and intellectually satisfying possibilities for 

understanding” (8), and from this uncertainty in relation to genre, “the most complex 

and troubling questions” (8) arise. Shakespeare raises highly complicated questions on 

the general human condition, and he leaves the solutions to his audience/readers. 

Moreover, even if Shakespeare provides answers to the questions he brings up in his 

plays, at the same time, he also creates an implicit restlessness in his audience/readers 

on the acceptability of these solutions (202). Therefore, for Risden, only Macbeth suits 

the features of tragedy defined by the Classics, and The Comedy of Errors and The 

Merry Wives of Windsor maintain the characteristics of Latin comedy and do not have 

generic ambiguity (9). However, Risden includes new plays in the category of problem 

plays and argues that The Merchant of Venice, All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and 

Cressida, Measure for Measure can be studied as problem plays in terms of the use of 



20 
 

genre and the questions they pose. Much Ado About Nothing, A Midsummer Night’s 

Dream and Twelfth Night are “the ‘comedic’ problem plays” (9). Hamlet, Othello and 

King Lear are “the ‘tragic’ problem plays” (9). Risden further designates Henry IV, Part 

1, Henry V, Cymbeline, The Tempest and Love’s Labour’s Lost as problem plays 

regarding the questions they pose on the issues of “love, adventure and governance” (9). 

Although Risden makes an extensive grouping, he uses the term ‘problem play’ as he 

supports that it is the best term that can easily be comprehended by any audience/reader 

of Shakespeare as well as students, critics and scholars (203).   

 

There is also a discussion among the scholars and critics in relation to the link between 

Shakespeare’s biography and the dark and serious content of the problem plays. In this 

sense, Dowden associates Shakespeare’s personal life with the problem plays as he 

maintains that Shakespeare lost his life energy and entered a pessimistic phase in his life 

when he began to write problem plays as he stated that “a mood of contemptuous 

depreciation of life may have come over Shakespeare, and spoilt him, at that time, for a 

writer of comedy” (Shakspere: His Mind and Art vii). Moreover, Dowden also argues 

that Shakespeare was highly influenced by the artistic, political and social developments 

of the Elizabethan era as he was a man who achieved to succeed within the political, 

social, religious, economic and artistic circumstances of that period (7). It may be 

deduced that in his comment Dowden correlates Shakespeare’s artistic development as a 

playwright with the issues of the Elizabethan era, and in this sense, the contents of 

Shakespeare’s plays cannot be isolated from particularly the historical background of 

the sixteenth century.  

 

Lawrence, on the other hand, does not establish a direct relation between Shakespeare’s 

biography and problem plays, and he argues that Shakespeare did not write his problem 

plays with the intention of presenting his own thoughts on various issues. In this sense, 

Lawrence asserts that “there is no evidence that the problem comedies were composed, 

[…], for the gratification of Shakespeare’s aesthetic interests, or to give expression to his 

views on conduct and morality”, and “they were written in the first instance to entertain, 

which does not mean merely to provide diversion but also to arouse and hold serious 

interest” (28). Therefore, it is possible to deduce from Lawrence’s statement that 



21 
 

Shakespeare’s problem plays not only amuse the audience/readers but also arouse interest 

through the issues they deal with.   

 

Like Lawrence, Tillyard does not associate the problems in Shakespeare’s private life 

with the sombre atmosphere of the problem plays. In other words, he asserts that the 

problems Shakespeare coped with in his private life are not the main reasons for his 

writing the plays categorised as problem plays. In this sense, for Tillyard, the approach 

which establishes a connection between Shakespeare’s biography and the bleak contents 

of the problem plays is highly far-fetched (10). Although Tillyard does not correlate 

Shakespeare’s personal life and his problem plays, he sustains that Shakespeare reflects 

the issues of his period in his problem plays as he notes that “[...] though it may be vain 

to conjecture from external evidence how Shakespeare’s emotions were behaving at this 

period, we can infer from the plays themselves that he was especially interested in certain 

matters” (11). In other words, like Dowden, Tillyard asserts that although there is not a 

direct relation between Shakespeare’s personal life and the issues handled in the problem 

plays, there is an association between the historical background of the late Elizabethan 

era and the early Jacobean period in Hamlet, All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and 

Cressida and Measure for Measure. 

 

Like Dowden and Tillyard, Hillman, although he does not directly relate Shakespeare’s 

biography and the contents of the problem plays, associates the historical background of 

the late sixteenth century and the early seventeenth century with the issues dealt with in 

the problem plays. He asserts that “several features of the late Elizabethan and early 

Jacobean scene” have an impact on the generic ambiguity “and, especially, on their 

perceived ‘darkness’ of tone and outlook” (9). Hillman highlights the contrast between 

the Elizabethan era which was “orderly and harmonious, respectful of hierarchy” (9) 

while providing “solid support for a sense of national purpose that expressed itself in 

heroic military exploits” (9) and the Jacobean period which was characterised by King 

James I’s “distant and authoritarian, at once mean-minded and both intellectually and 

politically arrogant” (10) personality. Furthermore, Hillman refers to the new 

circumstances of the Jacobean period which decreased the significance of the 

Elizabethan ideals and conventions such as honour and the social hierarchy. According 



22 
 

to Hillman, the rise of middle class, which was economically powerful, and 

consequently, the growth of an avaricious economical market were the main reasons of 

the changes in the Elizabethan ideals and traditions (10). However, Hillman does not 

only lay stress on the degeneracy in the Jacobean period but he also refers to the 

“atmosphere of decay” (12) seen in the last years of Elizabeth I’s reign, which he calls 

the “defunct myth of Elizabethan harmony” (11). For Hillman, the deterioration in 

Elizabeth I’s state of health, the lack of an heir in the succession, and the 

transformations in the society and the economic disruption caused unrest in the 

Elizabethan era (12). 

 

Lastly, in respect of the common characteristics of Shakespeare’s problem plays, the 

scholars and critics present different opinions. For instance, for Tillyard, in All’s Well 

That Ends Well the theme of “a young man gets a shock” (14) is presented in Bertram’s 

forced marriage to Helena and the night he spends with Diana, in Hamlet in the 

successive states of confusion Hamlet goes through, in Measure for Measure in 

Claudio’s trauma after he learns about the death penalty at the beginning of the play, in 

Troilus and Cressida in Troilus’s being betrayed by Cressida (14). Again for Tillyard, 

the second common characteristic of these plays is that the maturation the young male 

characters experience takes place at night which is presented by night scenes (15). 

Tillyard describes Shakespeare’s use of darkness for the process of maturation as 

follows: “I do not mean any conscious plan, but instinctively Shakespeare staged the 

most critical phase of growth in darkness” (15). For Tillyard, the third feature which is 

Shakespeare’s “interest in the old and new generations and in old and new habits of 

thought” (16) is presented only in All’s Well That Ends Well and Troilus and Cressida. 

In All’s Well That Ends Well, the old generation stands as the exact opposite of the 

young generation; while the former lives by the remnants of a creditable past, hence 

grieving and yearning for the glory of their past, the latter looks to the future and is free 

from the restrictive effects of the past, yet lacks the kindness that the old generation 

maintains (Tillyard 17). In Troilus and Cressida, the opposition between the old and the 

new is presented in the comparison between the Greeks who “are the new men, ruthless 

and, though quarrelsome and unpleasant, less inefficient than the Trojans” and the 



23 
 

Trojans who “are antique, anachronistically chivalrous, and rather inefficient” (Tillyard 

16).  

 

Rossiter focuses on “seeming and being” (127) or “a world of appearances [...] capable 

of opening-like a masque-set transformation-scene-and disclosing something totally 

different” (127) seen in all the problem plays. According to Rossiter, in Shakespeare’s 

problem plays the appearances of circumstances and people are deceptive as 

disappointing realities are hidden in them. Thus, when people awaken to hard truths, 

they are frustrated by the baseness, infidelity and egoism of humanity, a feature which 

leads to the downfall of Hamlet, Isabella, Troilus, and, also lightly affects, Helena 

(Rossiter 126-127).  

 

For Ure, the first common feature of the problem plays in his classification is the 

analysis of a character through various trials which gives rise to contradictory moral 

perceptions (7). In this sense, in All’s Well That Ends Well the way that Helena wins 

Bertram disturbs the audience/readers at the end of the play as “the wonder-working 

heroine of the first Acts is transformed into a business-woman in the later ones” (15). 

The second common characteristic is the use of satire. Then, the wish for agony and 

death and the use of realistic characters in romantic plots are the other features which 

link All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida, Measure for Measure and Timon 

of Athens (7). The last characteristic which Ure defines as “the first and most vital 

‘problem’ ” (8) is the difficulty of grasping the meaning of the plays due to their 

difficult language. Furthermore, according to Ure, indirect and startling words are used 

along with highly rich but confusing images and limited meter (8). 

 

As distinct from Tillyard and Rossiter, for Thomas, “a crucial debate scene which 

focuses on the central theme” (15), analysis of the link between the man and the 

institutions (15), the existence of characters like Thersites (Troilus and Cressida), 

Parolles (All’s Well That Ends Well) and Lucio (Measure for Measure) who do not 

function as clowns or fools but as maligners (16), the use of honour, sex and 

disillusionment as major themes (17-18), “the matter of identity and kinship” (19) and 

the difficult language reflecting the tension in the plays (21) are the common 



24 
 

characteristics of All’s Well That Ends Well, Troilus and Cressida and Measure for 

Measure as problem plays. The point on which Thomas agrees with Rossiter is the 

“contrasts between appearance and reality” (15) which is seen in All’s Well That Ends 

Well where Bertram acts viciously though he has a good lineage, and in Measure for 

Measure where Angelo is presented as a skilled judge who is later corrupted (15).   

 

As can be clearly observed, the naming, the categorisation and the structure of Julius 

Caesar, Hamlet, All’s Well That Ends Well, Antony and Cleopatra and Timon of Athens 

which are thought to have problematic features that distinguish them from 

Shakespeare’s comedies, tragedies, histories and romances have been discussed by 

different scholars and critics from different perspectives. In this dissertation, the term 

‘problem play’, which was first introduced by Boas, and agreed upon by Lawrence, 

Tillyard and Schanzer while disagreed by Dowden, Rossiter and Northrop Frye, will be 

used. It is argued that ‘problem play’ is more inclusive than the term ‘dark comedies’ 

which was used by Dowden who refers to the gravity in tone but categorises the plays in 

question as comedy ignoring the tragic nature of Hamlet. Moreover, the term ‘problem 

play’ is more comprehensive than ‘tragi-comedies’ used by Rossiter and ‘problem 

comedies’ used by Frye which classify the plays according to their generic qualities. 

Moreover, different from these scholars and critics who have analysed various plays of 

Shakespeare as problem plays in different aspects, this dissertation aims at 

concentrating on The Merchant of Venice (1596-1598), which has rarely been addressed 

as a problem play, in terms of character and genre, Hamlet in terms of character, and 

Measure for Measure in terms of issue and genre as problem plays. It will also be 

argued that the problems in religious, political and legal affairs, particularly, in the last 

years of Elizabeth I’s reign and at the beginning of James I’s reign had an impact on the 

bleak tone of Shakespeare’s problem plays when it is considered that the composition 

dates of these plays coincide with the last years of Elizabeth I’s reign (1558-1603) and 

the early years of James I’s reign (1603-1625). In this sense, it will be argued that in 

The Merchant of Venice the lasting enmity between the Christians and the Jews which 

increased in England particularly in the last years of Elizabeth I’s rule due to the Lopez 

case is reflected in the problematic representation of Shylock. In Hamlet the 

presentation of the succession problem and the Essex Rebellion, which also establishes 



25 
 

the ground for the unrest and corruption in Denmark, becomes one of the reasons of 

Hamlet’s melancholy until he decides to feign madness. In Measure for Measure James 

I’s authoritarian rule causing problem in the abuse of justice and enforcement of law is 

presented through Angelo and the Duke. In this regard, the historical background related 

to The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet and Measure for Measure will be analysed 

separately in detail in each chapter.  

 

Shakespeare’s three problem plays, The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet and Measure for 

Measure, will be studied in three different chapters respectively while taking into 

consideration the aspects which make them problem plays, and the religious and 

political background of the late Elizabethan era along with the political and legal 

background of the early Jacobean period.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



26 
 

CHAPTER I 

 

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE: A PROBLEM PLAY IN TERMS OF THE  

JEWISH PROBLEM AND GENRE 

 

 

Antonio: An evil soul producing holy witness 

Is like a villain with smiling cheek, 

A goodly apple rotten at the heart. 

O what a goodly outside falsehood hath!  

(The Merchant of Venice I.iii.94-97) 

 

After a full tyde of prosperitie 

cometh a lowe ebbe of 

adversitie. After a day of 

pleasure a night of sorrowe 

(Manningham, Folio 7 37) 

 

The Merchant of Venice raises various questions on the character of Shylock, Portia, 

and the issue of justice. The cruel treatment of Shylock primarily by Antonio and the 

other Christian characters is related to animosity between the Jews and the Christians in 

the play. Not only do the Christians despise the Jews but also Shylock detests the 

Christians. The religious and financial reasons for the enmity particularly between 

Shylock and Antonio make both the characters and their relationship to each other 

complex and arise questions in the audience/readers. Furthermore, the uncertainty of the 

genre of the play, that is whether it is a pure tragedy or a comedy, makes it problematic 

and again leads to some questions in the minds of the audience/readers. 

 

The original full title of The Merchant of Venice presented on the cover pages of the 

first and the second Quartos of 1600 and the third Quarto of 1637 is “The most 

excellent Historie of the Mercant of Venice. With the extreame crueltie of Shylocke the 

Iewe towards the fayd Merchant, in cutting a just pound of his fleshe and the obtayning 

of Portia by the choyfe of three chefts” (qtd. in Krane vii). In this sense, it may be 

argued that the emphasis is laid on not only Antonio, who is presented as the subject of 

Shylock’s malice, but also on Shylock, whose atrocity is in the foreground, and Portia, 

who is observed choosing among the three caskets.  



27 
 

Hence, this chapter aims at analysing The Merchant of Venice as a problem play in 

terms of the presentation of Shylock’s character, also regarding the place of the Jewish 

people in the Elizabethan era and the play’s generic uncertainty. It will be demonstrated 

that Shakespeare was aware of the negative image of the Jew presented in England since 

the Middle Ages but his presentation of Shylock neither disparages nor favours the 

image of the Jew; instead, Shakespeare gives rise to uncertainty about the intentions of 

Shylock in the audience/readers through his presentation of Shylock’s character. In 

other words, on the one hand, Shylock wins the affection of the audience/readers with 

the cruel treatment he receives from the Christians; on the other hand, it is openly put 

forward that Shylock hates Antonio not only because of his insults to Jewishness but 

also for his lending of money without interest. Therefore, it is left vague whether 

Shylock is victimised by the Christians or he victimises them. In this regard, the 

hypocritical attitudes of the Christians will be displayed notably through Antonio’s 

behaviours towards Shylock. In addition, the evolution of Portia’s character from a 

submissive woman to a manipulative one is of significance as it raises the problem of 

Shylock’s presentation through its contribution to his victimisation at the trial scene. 

Thus, it will be argued that there is a parallelism between the problematic 

representations of Portia and Shylock.  

 

The following analysis will first deal with the ambivalence about the composition date 

and the categorisation of The Merchant of Venice, and the discussion by various 

Shakespearean critics on these subjects will be presented. This will be followed by the 

performance history and the literary sources of the play. Then, the presentation of the 

historical background of the Jewish problem starting with the Middle Ages in western 

and central Europe, Italy and England, respectively, will be followed by the discussion 

of the trial of Doctor Roderigo Lopez and the influence of this case on Shakespeare. In 

this respect, Shakespeare’s relationship with the Earl of Southampton who was a close 

friend of the Earl of Essex who led the trial of Lopez will be dealt with in order to 

demonstrate Shakespeare’s familiarity with the case, and hence the Jewish problem that 

prevailed in sixteenth century England. Then, Shylock’s conflicting representation will 

be discussed through his relationship with Antonio, and the degrading of Shylock by the 

Christian characters and also his daughter who converted to Christianity will be 



28 
 

presented. In relation to this, Portia’s transformation and her deceiving Bassanio and 

Shylock in the disguise of a man during the trial scene will be analysed, and the link 

between Portia and Queen Elizabeth I, which may be argued as a political allusion by 

Shakespeare, through the marriage issue will be put forth. Finally, it will be 

demonstrated that the ending of the play and the casket scenes have elements of 

comedy.   

 

The first uncertainty about The Merchant of Venice starts with the composition date and 

categorisation of the play. Though there are various suggestions, it is not certainly 

known when the play was written. The play was registered in the Stationers’ Register on 

22 July in 1598 as follows: “[…] James Robertes. Entered for his copie, under the 

handes of bothe the wardens, a booke of the marchaunt of Venyce, or otherwise called 

the Jewe of Venyce […]” (Lambert 27-28). Edward Dowden dates the play to 1596 and 

groups it as “Middle Comedy” (Shakspere 56). For Dowden, “Middle Comedy” has the 

features of Shakespeare’s early and late comedies, and it is the synthesis of both groups 

(Shakspere 50). According to Dowden’s categorisation, The Merchant of Venice shares 

some similarities with Love’s Labour’s Lost (1590), The Comedy of Errors (1591), The 

Two Gentlemen of Verona (1592-93) and A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1593-94) 

which are Shakespeare’s early comedies and As You Like It (1599), Twelfth Night 

(1600-01), All’s Well That Ends Well (1601-02), Measure for Measure (1603) and 

Troilus and Cressida (1603) that are his late comedies (Shakspere 56). E.K. Chambers 

argues that The Merchant of Venice was written before the autumn of 1596 as it shows 

similarities with the other plays Shakespeare wrote in 1596 and the Sonnets in terms of 

style. The Merchant of Venice is also more serious than the comedies Shakespeare 

wrote in 1594 and 1595 (373). For Barber, the year 1596 is the early stage of the first 

period in Shakespeare’s authorship when he began to demonstrate his mastership 

through plays like Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Richard II, Henry 

IV, Henry V, As You Like It, Julius Caesar and Twelfth Night. Therefore, The Merchant 

of Venice has festive qualities like a comedy, but it is different from other festive 

comedies written in 1596 as it is “rather more ‘a kind of history’ ” (39-40). Thus, it may 

be deduced that the joyous elements of The Merchant of Venice brings the play close to 

Shakespeare’s early comedies and romantic comedies; however, the presentation of 



29 
 

Jewish history through Shylock’s cruelty and his mistreatment by the Christian 

characters attribute a distinct characteristic to the play. George Hunter suggests that The 

Merchant of Venice is one of the six romantic comedies written by Shakespeare 

between 1595 and 1600 and has common points with Love’s Labour’s Lost, A 

Midsummer Night’s Dream, Much Ado about Nothing, As You Like It and Twelfth Night 

(241). Similarly, Alfred Harbage categorises The Merchant of Venice as a comedy 

(Annals 62). However, Palladis Tamia, “a comparative study of English poetry with the 

poetry of Greece, Rome, and Italy” (Lee, “Shakespeare’s Life and Work” 501), which 

was written by Francis Meres in 1598 and presents the “lists of most of the plays and 

poems written by 1598” (Harbage, William Shakespeare 96), is the major source which 

gives the most accurate evidence about the dating of The Merchant of Venice. Palladis 

Tamia demonstrates that The Merchant of Venice was written before 1598, most 

probably in 1596. In Palladis Tamia, Meres mentions six comedies and six tragedies of 

William Shakespeare and he categorises The Merchant of Venice as a comedy (Hatcher 

105).  

 

In respect to the performance history, as the title page of the First Quarto dated 1600 

demonstrates, The Merchant of Venice had “ ‘beene diuers times acted by the Lord 

Chamberlaine his Seruants’ ” (qtd. in Halliday, Shakespeare and His Critics 174). In 

this sense, according to Martin Holmes, The Merchant of Venice may be listed among 

the plays performed between 1594 and 1597 at the Theatre (xiii). Though there is an 

ambiquity about the identity of the actor who played Shylock, Charles Edelman argues 

that “[…] it is likely that Burbage was the first to play him, but no genuine 

contemporary document confirms this […]” (5). Edelman further emphasises the 

success of the play when it was performed and states that “[w]hoever the actors may 

have been, the Merchant’s place in the King’s Men’s repertoire nine or ten years after it 

was written argues for its popularity […]” (5). Thus, it may be argued that The 

Merchant of Venice achieved to stir the interest of the Elizabethan and Jacobean 

audiences for many years after its first performance and received their appreciation. 

Moreover, the play was performed twice at the court before King James I in 1605 and 

was not restaged until 1741 (Mahon 21). The performance of the play at the Court is 

stated in the Accounts of the Revels as follows: “Hallamas Day being the first of 



30 
 

Nouembar A play in the Banketinge house att Whithall called The Moor of Venis” 

(Book XII 203).  

 

Regarding the sources of The Merchant of Venice, it may be argued that Shakespeare 

used diverse sources which are both literary and historical in The Merchant of Venice. 

To start with the literary sources, Shakespeare used The Jew, Il Pecorone (1387) by Ser 

Giovanni of Florence, Gesta Romanorum by Richard Robinson and The Jew of Malta 

(1589) by Christopher Marlowe for the plot and the characters. The Jew, which is a lost 

play, is accepted to be one of the sources Shakespeare used for The Merchant of Venice 

(Reese 121). The reference to The Jew is found in The School of Abuse (1579) which is 

a pamphlet by Stephen Gosson and “the bloody-minded usurer representing an early 

version of Shylock, and the worldy choosers foreshadowing Portia’s rejected suitors, the 

Prince of Morocco and the Prince of Arragon” are the reflections of The Jew in The 

Merchant of Venice (Gross 7). Shakespeare borrowed the story of the bond between the 

Christian merchant and the Jewish money lender from Il Pecorone (E.K. Chambers 

373). As John Russell Brown explains, “Shakespeare’s story of the bond for human 

flesh is of ancient origin, and is found, in rudimentary form, in religious tales from 

Persia and India” (The Merchant xxvii); however, “the first story of the fourth day in 

Ser Giovanni’s Il Pecorone” (Brown xxviii) is a significant source for the bond story in 

The Merchant of Venice. In Il Pecorone, Giannetto, the youngest son of a wealthy 

merchant in Florence, comes to Venice at the request of his dying father to live with 

Ansaldo who is his godfather and the richest merchant in Christendom. Giannetto 

decides to embark on a voyage with two of his close friends to see the world, so 

Ansaldo provides him with an imperial merchant ship with all the necessary equipment. 

However, Giannetto leaves his friends on the way to Alexandria to go to the harbour of 

Belmonte which is ruled by a beautiful widow who has accepted to marry any 

gentleman who achieves to spend the first night with her awake; if the gentleman falls 

asleep, he will lose his merchandise. With great eagerness, Giannetto twice accepts this 

challenge, yet he falls asleep each time and leaves Belmonte and his wealth behind. 

However, he tells his friends in Verona and Ansaldo that he was shipwrecked at sea and 

lost his ship and belongings in the shipwreck. When Giannetto forces Ansaldo to go on 

a voyage for the third time to recover what he has lost, Ansaldo sells everything he has 



31 
 

and borrows ten ducats from a Jew, whose name is not mentioned in the story, on 

condition that the Jew will take a pound of flesh from any part of Ansaldo’s body. Then, 

on his third visit to Belmonte, Giannetto is warned by a maid about not to drink the 

wine served before he goes to sleep and in the morning. Giannetto is announced as the 

husband of the lady and the new king of Belmonte. On the final date of the debt that 

Ansaldo owes to the Jew, Giannetto leaves Belmonte to save Ansaldo from the Jew who 

mercilessly and determinedly wants to cut a pound of flesh from Ansaldo’s body. The 

lady of Belmonte disguises as a judge from Bologna and interferes in the action. First, 

the judge offers the Jew the hundred thousand ducats to withdraw the bond; however, 

the Jew insists on his bond. Then, the judge accepts the Jew to cut exactly a pound of 

flesh from Ansaldo’s body without shedding any drop of blood. Eventually, the Jew is 

forced to tear the bond up and is left moneyless. Before the characters return to 

Belmonte, the lady in disguise of the wise judge wants Giannetto to give her the ring he 

wears as a token of his love for his wife. In Belmonte the lady reveals Giannetto the 

facts about her disguise as a judge and why she takes the ring from him. The story ends 

happily as Giannetto and the lady are reunited and Ansaldo marries the maid who 

helped Giannetto (Satin 120-133). Therefore, it may be argued that the test of the young 

gentleman from Verona by the lady of the Belmonte, the story of the pound of flesh, the 

presentation of the cruel Jew who wants to fulfil his bond and the happy ending are the 

common points of Il Pecorone and The Merchant of Venice. However, in Il Pecorone, 

the reason for the Jew’s hatred towards the Christian merchant is not presented. 

Furthermore, the grounds of Gianetto’s voyage is different from Bassanio’s reason to 

travel to Belmont. In addition, the English translation of Il Pecorone was not published 

during Shakespeare’s lifetime; hence, it may be stated that Shakespeare read the source 

in Italian, or he read the unpublished English manuscript of the tale (Gross 5).  

 

The prodigality and insistence of Giannetto on winning the widow ignoring the 

financial difficulties of Ansaldo is evidently referred to in II.vi. in The Merchant of 

Venice through Graziano’s words on the nature of marriage as follows: 

 

How like a younger or a prodigal 

The scarfed bark puts from her native bay– 

Hugg’d and embraced by the strumpet wind! 

How like the prodigal doth she return 



32 
 

With over-weather’d ribs and ragged sails– 

Lean, rent, and beggar’d by the strumpet wind! (14-19)  

 

Thus, it may be stated that Shakespeare not only uses the plot of his literary source but 

he also refers to the incidents happening in the source play through the statements of the 

characters in The Merchant of Venice. 

 

Another literary source Shakespare used for the story of the three caskets is Gesta 

Romanorum which is “the collection of stories so popular in the Middle Ages” 

(Dowden, Shakspere 92). It is probable that Shakespeare knew about the translation of 

Gesta Romanorum which was made by Richard Robinson and was published in 1577 

and 1595 (Boyce 419). There are both differences and similarities between Gesta 

Romanorum and The Merchant of Venice. The major difference between the two works 

is the gender of the chooser and the chosen. In Gesta Romanorum a girl is forced to 

make a choice among the three caskets to be the wife of the Emperor’s son while in The 

Merchant of Venice, a man has to make a choice to be the husband of the Princess of 

Belmont. However, in both works, the casket made up of lead is the right casket to win 

the lover and the beloved (Freud 7). For the bond motif, Shakespeare also used Anthony 

Munday’s Zelauto (1580) which additively mentions the story of how the Jewish money 

lender is robbed by his daughter (E.K. Chambers 373).  

 

Christopher Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta, which was first performed by Lord Strange’s 

players on 26 February 1592 at the Rose Theatre (Longmans 22), was particularly a 

significant source for Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice. According to Alfred 

Harbage, The Jew of Malta should be categorised as a tragedy while The Merchant of 

Venice has been grouped as a comedy by various Shakespearean critics and scholars as 

mentioned earlier (Annals 52). As Thomas Marc Parrott points out, The Jew of Malta 

became very popular with the Elizabethan audience and it was staged for many times in 

1594, and hence “[i]t seems reasonable to suppose that Shakespeare’s fellow-actors 

urged him to write them a wicked Jew play that might compete with Marlowe’s 

melodrama” (135). In The Jew of Malta, Farnese, who is the Christian governor of 

Malta, plunders the wealth of Barabas, the affluent Jew, so that he can pay tribute to the 

Turks. He offers Barabas two options; he would either convert to Christianity or keep 



33 
 

half of his wealth, or he would not convert and lose all of his riches. Barabas rejects to 

convert and lose his Jewish identity; instead, he takes revenge from the Christians and 

sets the Turks against the Christians (Longmans 22-23). In this sense, it may be argued 

that Shakespeare was influenced by the representation of Barabas, the rich and evil Jew 

in The Jew of Malta while creating Shylock, the wealthy Jewish money lender who 

cold-heartedly insisted on his bond. Furthermore, the desire for revenge that both 

characters have against the Christians is common for both plays. In Brown’s words, 

“[…] more important is the probability that Marlowe’s successful portrait of the villain 

Barabas coloured Shakespeare’s conception of a Jew. Abigail, the Jew’s daughter who 

turns Christian, may also have played a part in suggesting Shylock’s Jessica” 

(Introduction: The Merchant xxxi). In addition, regarding the similarities between the 

two plays, Boas argues that The Jew of Malta and The Merchant of Venice should be 

studied together as both plays arouse curiosity in terms of the plot and characters, and in 

both plays the main focus is on the Jewish character (Shakspere 287). However, it may 

also be stated that there is a major distinction between Barabas and Shylock in terms of 

characterisation. In this regard, while Barabas “is a cunning, avaricious schemer […]”, 

Shylock “is a dramatic character of an entirely different dimension, a subtly drawn 

mixture of evil and suffering” (Frykman and Kjellmer 40), as will be demonstrated in 

this chapter. In this regard, as Sir Israel Gollancz points out, “[…] in some way or other 

both Marlowe and Shakespeare knew much about the Jews. How they knew it is 

difficult to tell, but they did know this: that your Jew may be in the public mind the 

vilest usurer” (30).  

 

The literary sources are not the only sources Shakespeare was influenced by or used for 

the composition of The Merchant of Venice and particularly for the creation of Shylock. 

In Sir John Squire’s words, “[a] great part of Shakespearean literature is concerned with 

special aspects of his knowledge, with his ‘sources’, with the textual history of his 

plays, with his relations to his time – in other words with facts, real or presumed” (17). 

To put it more clearly, Shakespeare combined the literary and historical sources with his 

imagination in his plays. In this respect, the history of the Jewish people in Europe and 

England is of importance in order to understand the creation of the negative image of 

the Jew which shaped the public opinion in the Elizabethan era.  



34 
 

The lasting enmity between the Jewish people and the Christians has a long past as 

Christianity had grown out of Judaism but after it parted from Judaism in terms of 

religious practices, Christianity became more widespread and its separation from 

Judaism was regarded as a rebellion by the Jewish people (J. Edwards 12-13). In this 

regard, in Charles Guignebert’s words, “Jesus was born among Jews on Jewish soil, and 

his message was for Jews alone. In its origin, therefore, and in so far as it is dependent 

on its traditional founder, Christianity must be considered a Jewish phenomenon. When 

Jesus ended his ministry, it was not yet a religion, but at least it was the embodiment of 

a great hope” (Introduction 1). Furthermore, John Manningham mentions the sustained 

hatred between the Jews and the Christian as he refers to the betrayal of the Jews in an 

entry dated 1601 in his diary as follows:  

 
Honour is like a spiders webbe, long in doinge, but soone undone, blowne down 

with every blast. It is like a craggy stepe rocke, which a man is longe getting 

upon, and being up, yf his foote but slip, he breakes his necke. Soe the Jews 

dealt with Christ; one day they would have him a king, an other day none, one 

day ctyed Hosanna to him, an other nothing but Crucifie him. (Folio 7b 37-38)  
 

As indicated in these lines, not only do the Jewish people accuse the Christians of 

betrayal but also the Christians consider the Jews responsible for the crucifixion of 

Christ. In other words, the hatred between the Christians and the Jewish people has been 

mutual since the first interaction between the two religious beliefs started, which is also 

explicitly presented in The Merchant of Venice as will be demonstrated.  

 

The rejection of the Jewish people in the political, social and religious spheres in 

western and central Europe started in the Middle Ages. In France the Capetian Philip IV 

and his Valois successors purposed to remove the Jews from the regions which they 

controlled in 1306 and 1394, respectively. Furthermore, in the fourteenth century, 

throughout France, Germany and Spain, the rest of the Jewish population was exposed 

to constraint due to the outbreak of political, social and economic crises, and also the 

Jews were held responsible for the contagion of the Black Death. They were deported 

from Spain and Portugal in 1492 and in 1497, respectively (J. Edwards 11). Ivan G. 

Marcus explains these charges against the Jews as follows: “The major turning point for 

central European Jewry was the Black Death of 1349, a trauma that reduced the 

population of some areas of Europe by as much as 50 percent. Unable to explain a 



35 
 

catastrophe of such magnitude, the popular mind personalized the agents of destruction 

by blaming the Jews for poisoning the wells of Europe” (180-181). In Spain the positive 

and inclusive approach towards the Jewish population changed negatively particularly 

in the late fourteenth century and the Jewish people living in Toledo, Seville, Valencia 

and Burgos were slayed and were forced to convert to Christianity (Israel 4). The 

Jewish people who had been deported from western and central Europe as a result of 

various accusations and persecution found shelter in Poland, Lithuania and the Ottoman 

Balkans in the late fifteenth century (Israel 5). Therefore, in the light of the condition of 

the Jewish population in western and central Europe between the early fourteenth and 

early sixteenth centuries, it may be argued that the Jews were regarded as the enemies of 

the Christians and they were exposed to massacre and expulsion.  

 

The Jewish people in Venice had been protected by law since 1385 and they were 

allowed to reside in Venice and do business as money lenders on the Rialto (Gilbert 30) 

as also presented in The Merchant of Venice. In III.i. Solanio asks Salerio, “Now what 

news on the Rialto?” (1) in order to get information on the course of Antonio’s 

business. In this respect, the Jews in Venice were allowed to sell clothes (Gilbert 30). 

However, they were imposed restraints in commerce as they were excluded from the 

international trade corporation, and thus the Jews of Venice and the Christian 

businessmen were kept apart (Cerasano 16). They were also subject to various 

restrictions in social life as they could not possess land, and it was initially obligatory 

for the Jewish men to wear a yellow circle while the Jewish women had to wear a 

yellow scarf, but then both men and women were forced to wear a yellow hat so that 

they could be distinguished from the Christians (Gilbert 30). Furthermore, the Jewish 

people in Venice were alienated from the Christian people and were forced to live in 

deserted areas within the city which were close to prisons and called a ‘ghetto’ by the 

decree implemented by the Council of Ten, “a major governing body in the city” (Cook 

151), in 1516 (Cerasano 15). In Ennio Concina’s words, “[t]he settlement of Jews in 

Ghetto Novo began at the end of July 1516