In 1592 a massive outbreak of the plague hit London (over the next two years 15,000 people would die). As was common during times of plague, the theaters were closed in an effort to slow the spread of the disease. Acting companies were forced to leave the city on tour and the demand for new plays became virtually nonexistent.

During this time, Shakespeare wrote his two epic poems: Venus & Adonis and Lucrece (now more commonly known as The Rape of Lucrece). These poems were dedicated to the Earl of Southhampton, and the popular hypothesis is that the young Shakespeare — faced with destitution in the face of the plague — sought out a patron for his poetic arts. Even more hypothetically, it may have been Southhampton’s patronage which made it possible for Shakespeare to purchase a share in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men in 1594 when the plague came to an end.

Shakespeare never wrote another epic poem, but, perhaps unsurprisingly, the tale of Lucrece continued to influence his work: Macbeth goes “with Tarquin’s ravishing strides” to murder Duncan; in Coriolanus the downfall of the Tarquin kings (as a direct result of the events depicted in Lucrece) serves as a backdrop for the political drama; Hamlet, like Lucrece, dwells on the death of Priam and the weeping of Hecuba as an analog for his own grief; in both Romeo & Juliet and A Midsummer Night’s Dream the imagery of raped Philomel transformed into the singing nightingale is evoked (as it is in Lucrece); in Twelfth Night Shakespeare even gives us a little personal product placement for Lucrece (by using it as Olivia’s signet ring).

Originally posted on August 10th, 2011.

When Shakespeare sat down to write The Merchant of Venice, he was tapping into the well-established Elizabethan genre of the “Jewish Villain”. After The Merchant of Venice itself, Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta is the most famous example of the genre, but it was only one among a dozen or more plays of the same type which had been written in the 1580’s and early 1590’s.

And the genre was currently hot stuff.

In 1594, Queen Elizabeth’s personal physician, Rodrigo Lopez, was convicted as part of a conspiracy to poison the the queen. Lopez was a converted Jew from Portugal, and his identity as a marrano (or hidden Jew) played a major role in the publicity surrounding his trial.

The salacious nature of the case hyped interest in Jewish villain plays. For example, The Jew of Malta, originally produced in 1589, enjoyed renewed success and a fresh spike of interest that lasted for several years (as indicated in Henslowe’s Diary by the frequent performances it received). So The Merchant of Venice, like a modern Hollywood blockbuster, was pretty much calculated to take advantage of the current theatrical trends.

One can see the influence of the genre on The Merchant of Venice when Shylock first turns to address the audience and, like Marlowe’s Barabas, uncloaks his villainy:

How like a fawning publican he looks.
I hate him for he is a Christian:
But more for that in low simplicity
He lends out money gratis, and brings down
The rate of usance here with us in Venice.
If I can catch him once upon the hip,
I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him.
He hates our sacred nation, and he rails
Even there where merchants most do congregate
On me, my bargains, and my well-won thrift,
Which he calls interest: Cursed be my tribe
If I forgive him.

But in the process of creating Shylock, Shakespeare applied his natural instincts as a playwright. There are few authors in the history of the world with Shakespeare’s grasp of human psychology or his ability to evoke it in his characters. Shakespeare couldn’t simply conjure up the image of a Jewish boogeyman on the stage; he needed to understand the root and nature of it. He needed to create Shylock’s soul. And a few lines later, he begins to find it:

Signior Anthonio, many a time and oft
In the Rialto you have rated me
About my moneys and my usances:
Still have I borne it with a patient shrug
(For sufferance is the badge of all our Tribe);
You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog,
And spit upon my Jewish gaberdine,
And all for use of that which is mine own.
Well then, it now appears you need my help:
Go to then, you come to me, and you say,
“Shylock, we would have moneys”, you say so:
You that did void your rheum upon my beard
And foot me as you spurn a stranger cur
Over your threshold, moneys is your suit.
What should I say to you? Should I not say
“Hath a dog money? Is it possible
A cur can lend three thousand ducats?” Or
Shall I bend low, and in a bondman’s key,
With bated breath and whisp’ring humbleness,
Say this: “Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last,
You spurn’d me such a day, another time
You call’d me dog: And for these courtesies
I’ll lend you thus much moneys”?

What would drive a man to such depths of villainy? Revenge. Revenge for his way of life being mocked. Revenge for his livelihood being threatened. Revenge for being treated like a dog. Revenge for his daughter being stolen from him.

The result is a deeply unsettling play because, even as it takes the form of an anti-semitic genre, Shakespeare’s gifts create a completely believable, psychologically rich, and utterly believable Jewish character to serve as its villain. It is much easier to deal with bigoted literature when it stars vapid, mindless caricatures. But it is deeply disturbing when a genius finds exactly the buttons necessary to turn the soul of man into the most horrific stereotypes and then proceeds to relentlessly push them.

It has been argued that The Merchant of Venice was designed from the beginning to highlight Christian hypocrisy and the painful dangers of bigotry. I don’t know if that’s true (there’s much to suggest that it isn’t). But as we delved into the play, I became increasingly certain of this: As he explored the hateful depths of the Christian bigotry he used to create Shylock’s villainy, Shakespeare found that he didn’t like it very much.

Beyond the ambiguous boundaries of the play itself, consider Shakespeare’s later contribution to Sir Thomas More. More has confronted a riot of Englishmen seeking to attack and exile immigrants:

Grant them removed, and grant that this your noise
Hath chid down all the majesty of England;
Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,
Their babies at their backs and their poor luggage,
Plodding tooth ports and costs for transportation,
And that you sit as kings in your desires,
Authority quite silent by your brawl,
And you in ruff of your opinions clothed;
What had you got? I’ll tell you: you had taught
How insolence and strong hand should prevail,
How order should be quelled; and by this pattern
Not one of you should live an aged man,
For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought,
With self same hand, self reasons, and self right,
Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes
Would feed on one another.

Shakespeare characterizes those who would act on their racist impulses as specifically destroying “the majesty of England” in one of the most effective evocations of the dangers of irrational bigotry in all of English literature. How easy is it to see Gratiano’s bull-headed racism in The Merchant of Venice as one of those “other ruffians” that “with self same hand, self reasons, and self right would shark on you”?

And then there’s this: Phrases like “I am a Jew if I don’t do X” and “if you don’t do X, then you are a Jew” were a common parlance in Elizabethan English. Given this important context, consider anew Shylock’s most famous speech:

I am a Jew: Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

I am a Jew. In saying that, Shylock is claiming for himself something which was inherently shunned in the language of the time. And then he transforms it and humanizes it. He forces the audience to put themselves into his shoes.

Shakespeare, too, had used the “I am a Jew” turn of phrase routinely, turning it into a punchline for Two Gentlemen of Verona (twice), Henry IV Part 1, and Much Ado About Nothing. He also used other Jew jokes in Love’s Labours Lost and A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

But after writing The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare abruptly stopped using Jew jokes. In fact, depending on when one dates the composition of Much Ado About Nothing, after writing The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare never used another Jew joke (although he would continue writing for another 15-20 years).

We know this wasn’t a shift in the language: Other writers were still using the phrase. But in writing The Merchant of Venice something had shifted in Shakespeare. In creating the soul of Shylock, he had transformed his own.

Originally posted on December 6th, 2010.

From Reddit:

At the conclusion to this school year’s campaign, in order to pick up at the beginning of next semester, I want to have Pelor and Sehanine fight, with Pelor winning and eating Sehanine’s heart to become corrupted. However, if I just set the gods in a valley and describe what happens as they throw down, I feel like I am taking away my players agency. Advice?

My response to this is based on Part 2 of The Art of Pacing, and I thought it raised some specific points that might be of interest to others:

Right now you’re setting the agenda of the scene as, “Will Pelor eat Sehanine’s heart?” That’s an understandable impulse because it’s clearly the biggest and coolest thing happening in that particular moment. But, as you note, that agenda doesn’t mention the PCs at all and, therefore, prevents them from taking any meaningful action.

Instead of focusing on the outcome of the god-fight, you need to figure out what the PCs’ agenda will be during the fight: What is it they’re trying to accomplish and what are the obstacles they’ll need to overcome to accomplish it?

Another way to think about this would be to replace the god-fight with a similarly cataclysmic event. For example, the PCs are in Los Angeles and the Big One hits the San Andreas fault. The agenda here would not be, “Will the earthquake destroy Los Angeles?” The answer to that question is beyond the PCs’ control. The agenda will instead involve the PCs reacting to the immediate chaos and destruction around them, probably answering variations of, “Can you survive?” or “Can you save that person/place/item?”)

Or you could actually think of the god-fight as a spectator event. For example, let’s say your PCs go to a football game. There are two possibilities here: Either the event is narrated very quickly and you move on to the next interesting thing which actively involves the PCs (“The game goes to sudden death overtime, but the Vikings pull out a victory. What do you do after the game?”). Or you’re focused on an event happening at the football match which is unrelated to the game (so that the agenda is something like, “Will Carlie kiss you?”). Or the PCs are able to take actions which somehow impact the outcome of the game (by stopping the gangsters who are trying to assassinate the star wide receiver or by outfitting the home team’s shoes with Flubber or whatever).

Returning to the god-fight, you’ll find that the same techniques apply. You could spend 30 seconds describing the titanic fight in brief (but effective) detail before moving onto the next agenda that’s immediately relevant to the PCs. Or you could set agendas that:

• Deal with the collateral damage of the fight (saving themselves or others).
• Use the god-fight as the backdrop for some other conflict. (Which may have nothing to do with the god-fight; for example, as the gods begin to fight the PCs might be attacked by a group of assassins. The narration of the god-fight backdrops or thematically complements the fight against the assassins; maybe by-products from the god-fight affect the assassin fight in cool ways.)
• Allow the PCs to directly affect or influence the god-fight (maybe there are local shrines to the gods that they can imbue with energy; or they could organize mass prayers; or travel to points of sympathetic divine resonance in the region and sacrifice their divine spell slots to aid their god).
• Or the outcome of the god-fight (for example they might be able to take actions during the fight which will either aid or hinder them later while dealing with Pelor’s corruption).
• Allow the PCs to learn something from the god-fight.

If you’re struggling to come up with an appropriate agenda, don’t be afraid of letting your players set the agenda. For example:

GM: Pelor and Sehanine start to fight. What do you do?

Players: We RUN!!

Presto. The agenda is, “Can they escape?” and you should be able to run with it from there. Even if they decide there’s no possible agenda for them to pursue (like people just enjoying the football game in front of them), it’s still a useful technique:

GM: Pelor and Sehanine start to fight. What do you do?

Players: We sit in stunned silence and watch.

Now you can launch into you 60 second description of the titanic battle playing out in front of them, but you haven’t removed their agency. (They’re the ones who chose to stay and watch.)

Final tip: Break the fight into a half dozen or so distinct beats. Describing these beats succinctly is the 60 second description, but the beats also provide a flexible structure for any other agendas that might be pursued. (If they start fighting assassins, for example, each beat gets described as the backdrop to a round of combat. If they try to save people in a nearby village, some or all of the beats provide complications to that effort. And so forth.)

Go to Ask the Alexandrian #15

This article originally appeared in the August 2002 issue of Campaign Magazine. It originated as a set of house rules I used in my original 3rd Edition campaign. Its stripped down simplicity should make it widely applicable to most D20-based games (including 3.5 and PF).

This alternate system for magic item creation scraps the original item creation feats (found in the core rulebook) and replaces them with an alternate set, consisting of Scribe Scroll, Brew Potion, Enchant Wand, Enchant Magic Arms and Armor, Enchant Magical Items, Enchantment, and Major Enchantment.

The system defines five types of magic items:

Scrolls. A one use device for storing spells usable by spellcasters. This typically takes the form of written parchment, but this is not necessarily the case.

Potion. A one use device for storing spells usable by anybody. However, a potion must affect only the person using it (although the affect may allow the user to effect others, such as a potion of fire-breathing). Potions almost always take the form of a liquid which is activated by drinking.

Wands. Stores a single spell with 50 charges (with each charge allowing the user to use the wand’s spell one time). Wands usually take the form of a thin baton.

Magic Arms/Armor. Magical weapons, armor, and shields. Although arms and armor can actually be used as the focus for many types of items (for example, a sword could be enchanted as a wand), this category specifically applies to only two things: (1) Creating weapons or armor with magical bonuses; and (2) Creating weapons or armor with special abilities.

Magical Items. A catch-all category containing everything else (including items previously defined as wondrous items, rods, rings, and staffs).

The system defines three types of feats:

Basic Creation Feats. Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion are basic creation feats. Spellcasters can use Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion with nothing more than the feat, the spell, and the necessary materials.

Enchant Feats. Enchant Wand, Enchant Magic Arms and Armor, and Enchant Magical Items are the three Enchant feats. These feats represent the spellcaster’s basic knowledge of how to create a specific type of item.

Enchantment Feats. Enchantment and Major Enchantment are the enchantment feats. Enchantments are broke into three categories: Minor enchantments (spell levels 1-3), enchantments (spell levels 4-6), and major enchantments (spell levels 7-9). A spellcaster can create an item requiring only a minor enchantment (for example, an amulet of natural armor) with nothing more than the appropriate enchant feat and spell (in this case, Enchant Magical Item and barkskin). If a spellcaster wishes to create an item requiring an enchantment or major enchantment (for example, a wand of ice storm) the spellcaster must have the appropriate enchant feat, the appropriate spell, and the appropriate enchantment feat (in this case, Enchant Wand, ice storm, and Enchantment).

In general, creating items in the new system is identical to creating items in the original system – except that the prerequisites for creating an item now use the new feats instead of the old (as described above). (See the accompanying table for a quick conversion if the appropriate feat is not readily apparent for some reason.)

NEW FEATS

SCRIBE SCROLL
You can create scrolls, from which you or another spellcaster can cast the scribed scroll. A scroll is a one use device for storing spells usable by spellcasters. This typically takes the form of written parchment, but this is not necessarily the case.

Prerequisite: Spellcaster Level 1^st+

Benefit: You can create a scroll of any spell that you know. Scribing a scroll takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. The base price of a scroll is its spell level multiplied by its caster level multiplied by 25 gp. To scribe a scroll, you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing half of this base price.

Any scroll that stores a spell with a costly material component or an XP cost also carries a commensurate cost to the creator. In addition to the costs derived from the base price, you must expend the material component or pay the XP when scribing the scroll.

BREW POTION
You can create potions which carry spells within themselves. Potions are a one use device for storing spells usable by anybody. However, a potion must affect only the person using it (although the affect may allow the user to effect others, such as a potion of fire-breathing). Potions almost always take the form of a liquid which is activated by drinking (although some potions are known as elixirs, and magic oils are activated by rubbing them on the body).

Prerequisite: Spellcaster Level 3^rd+

Benefit: You can create a potion of any spell of 3^rd level or lower that you know and that targets a creature or creatures. Brewing a potion takes 1 day. When you create the potion, you set the caster level. The caster level must be sufficient to cast the spell in question and no higher than your own level. The base price of a potion is its spell level multiplied by its caster level multiplied by 50 gp. To brew a potion, you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing half of this base price.

When you create a potion you make any choices that you would normally make when casting the spell. Whoever drinks the potion is the target of the spell.

Any potion that stores a spell with a costly material component or an XP cost also carries a commensurate cost to the creator. In addition to the costs derived from the base price, you must expend the material component or pay the XP when creating the potion.

ENCHANT WAND
You can create wands, which cast spells. A wand stores a single spell with 50 charges (with each charge allowing the user to use the wand’s spell one time). Wands usually take the form of a thin baton.

Prerequisites: Spellcaster Level 5^th+

Benefits: You can create a wand of any spell of 4th level or lower that you know. (You must possess the Enchantment feat to create wands with 4^th level spells.) Crafting a wand takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. The base price of a wand is its caster level multiplied by the spell level multiplied by 750 gp. To craft a wand, you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing half of this base price.

A newly created wand has 50 charges.

Any wand that stores a spell with a costly material component or an XP cost also carries a commensurate cost to the creator. In addition to the costs derived from the base price, you must expend fifty copies of the material component or pay fifty times the XP cost.

ENCHANT MAGIC ARMS AND ARMOR
You can create magical weapons, armor, and shields – enchanting them with magical bonuses or special abilities.

Prerequisite: Spellcaster Level 5^th+

Benefit: You can create any magic weapon, armor, or shield whose prerequisites you meet. (You must possess the Enchantment or Major Enchantment feats to create an item with prerequisite spells of 4^th level or above.) Enchancing a weapon, suit or armor, or shield takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in the price of its magical features. To enhance a weapon, suit or armor, or shield, you must spend 1/25 of its features’ total price in XP and use up raw materials costing half of this total price. (See the core rulebooks for descriptions of magic weapons, armor, and shields, the prerequisites associated with each one, and prices of their features.)

You can also mend a broken magic weapon, suit or armor, or shield if it is one that you could make. Doing so costs half the XP, half the raw materials, and half the time it would take to enchant that item in the first place.

The weapon, armor, or shield to be enhanced must be a masterwork item that you must provide. (Its cost is not included in the above cost.)

ENCHANT MAGICAL ITEMS
You can create miscellaneous magic items – including rods, staffs, rings, crystal balls, and others

Prerequisite: Spellcaster Level 5^th+

Benefit: You can create any miscellaneous magic item whose prerequisites you meet. (You must possess the Enchantment or Major Enchantment feats to create an item with prerequisite spells of 4^th level or above.) Enchanting a miscellaneous magic item takes 1 day for 1,000 gp in its price. To enchant a miscellaneous magic item, the spellcaster must spend 1/25 of it the item’s price in XP and use up raw materials costing half of this price.

You can also mend a broken miscellaneous magic item if it is one that you could create. Doing so costs half the XP, half the raw materials, and half the time that it would take to enchant that item in the first place.

Some wondrous items incur extra costs in material components or XP as noted in their descriptions. These costs are in addition to those derived from the item’s base price. You must pay such a cost to create an item or mend a broken one.

ENCHANTMENT
You are capable of enchanting items requiring more powerful spells.

Benefit: You can create magic items requiring prerequisite spells of 4^th-6^th level.

Normal: A spellcaster without the Enchantment feat can only create magic items with prerequisite spells of 1^st-3^rd level.

MAJOR ENCHANTMENT
You are capable of enchanting items requiring the most powerful spells.

Benefit: You can create magic items requiring prerequisite spells of 7^th level or higher.

This material is covered by the Open Gaming License.

The source of the Jew’s alien threat in the Elizabethan consciousness, of course, lies in their religious ostracism. Curiously, however, the religious perception of Jews in Elizabethan England was a double-sided one of both villification and hope. On the one hand, the ancient slander that the Jews had murdered Christ and were thus cursed by God were alive and well (and “explained” for some why God refused to let them assimilate into society like other immigrants). On the other hand, they were still considered to be play an important role in God’s ultimate plan.

Specifically, English Protestants, in their conflict with Catholics, needed some explanation for why God had allowed the false faith of the Catholic Church to rule for hundreds of years. To greatly simplify the matter, they looked for their answers in the Book of Daniels and the Book of Revelation:

And I saw an Angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand. And he took the dragon, that old serpent which is the devil and Satan, and he bound him a thousand years.
(Revelation 20:1-2)

This passage, taken from the Geneva Bible of 1587, was interpreted to mean that the Catholic Churhc had, in fact, been doing Satan’s work for a thousand years. The Pope was thus transformed into the Antichrist and the fact that God had allowed the false Catholic Church to flourish was, in fact, all part of the divine plan leading to Christ’s return. The rise of the Church of England was interpreted as the breaking of Satan’s chains, the fulfillment of God’s promise, and the beginning of the end of days.

And at that time Michael shall stand up, ye great prince, which standeth for the children of thy people, and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there began to be a nation unto that same time: And at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
(Daniel 12:1)

Combined with the visions of Revelation, the visions interpreted by the prophet Daniel linked the salvation of the Jews to the end of the world. For the Elizabethans, this meant a mass conversion of the Jews to Christianity. (How else could they be saved?)

So if they were right and the Catholic Church was wrong, it meant that the end of the world was nigh. And if the end of the world was nigh, then the Jews should all be converting very, very soon now. In other words, Elizabethan Protestants needed the Jews to convert in order to prove them right.

Around this time there was a major debate regarding whether the Jews should be allowed to return to England. There were, of course, political and economic factors driving this debate. But the major reason cited by proponents of a Jewish return was that Jews should be brought to England so that they could be converted in God’s chosen land (and, thus, bring about the end of the world).

When Shakespeare has Shylock (and then Gratiano) name Portia a “second Daniel” repeatedly throughout the final trial scene of The Merchant of Venice, there is a specific invocation of a millenaristic prophecy which was directly tied in the popular mind to the conversion of the Jews… which is then immediately sequeled by the conversion of a Jew.

Many modern texts will gloss the reference to Dnaiel as referring specifically to the tale of Susannah (in which Daniel saved Susannah from false accusation in a public court by cleverly questioning her accusers). If so, the choice is interesting: The tale of Susannah is not, in fact, part of the Jewish Tanakh and appears only in Christian scripture. Shakespeare would likely have been aware of this, because the tale of Susannah was also explicitly excluded from being a part of official church doctrine in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (for similar reasons). Thus, in a religiously charged sequence, Shakespeare may be choosing to specifically allude to a key division between both Jews and Christians, and also between Catholics and Protestants.

But I’m not certain Susannah is the essential crux here, as Daniel was generally understood to be “ten times better than all the enchanters and astrologians that were in all [King Cyrus’] realm” (Daniel 1:20). Daniel was, in particular, given a particular speciality in the matter of visions and dreams (Daniel 1:17), and in that role he interpreted the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar while under the false name of Belteshazzar (just as Portia is appearing under the false name of Balthazar).

In either case, the allusion to Daniel in general ties the conversion of Shylock to a more universal debate regarding the importance of converting Jews to Christianity. Which, in turn, raises questions regarding the universal quality of the conversion-as-punishment: Shylock sought to unmake Anthonio’s Christianity; so the punishment meted by Anthonio is to unmake Shylock as a Jew. So (in the Elizabethan conception) did the Jews seek to destroy Christ and would be converted in the due course of God’s plan. And Daniel evokes Christ for us by revealing Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of a statue of gold, silver, brass, and iron (in a play where gold, silver, and lead caskets are similarly given symbolic meaning) destroyed by a great stone (later interpreted as Jesus) cut from a mountain (as the flesh is to be cut from Anthonio).

Have we delved deep? Are we now staring into our own navels instead of the play? Perhaps.

But what is certain is that the religious content of The Merchant of Venice is not a thin glaze applied to coat Shylock’s villainy. The Biblical allusions are thick in this play, and the scriptural questions often explicit. If the play thus opens itself to the rich ambiguities inherent in the apprehension of the religious experience it is almost certainly to the play’s credit.

Originally posted on December 5th, 2010.