I love the Merchant of Venice. I love its characters (or rather, I love to hate them), I love its conflicts, and I love its setting. But, most importantly, I love its great ambiguity dealing with Antonio and Bassanio. Most people in today's literary world tend to focus on the obvious anti-semitism displayed in the character of Shylock. The fact that this play was (and still is) considered a comedy seems to almost be a crime against morality. Lancelot was not the only fool in this play; Shylock is mocked for his desire to destroy Antonio the Christian and his struggles being a Jew in Europe. However, I am even more interested in that other bane of comedy: an unnatural relationship.
I read this play last spring in my English Literature class and found the ambiguous relationship between Antonio and Bassanio absolutely fascinating. Its mystery can be compared to the friendship of Helena and Hermia in A Midsummer Night's Dream. The way Helena speaks of her past with Hermia suggests that they could have been more than friends, with sensual images of cherries and cushions popping out of her monologue. Of course, in order for there to be a happy ending, unnatural relationships such as this must be disposed of and, sure enough, Helena and Hermia snag their men and are married in the most heterosexual way.
In The Merchant of Venice, the deeper meanings are a bit more hidden, although they can be found as early as the very first scene. Antonio is very sad but cannot say why. His affairs are in order and he is making money, but still he is troubled. When his friend Solanio suggests he is in love, Antonio quickly brushes the notion away and it is not brought up again. So far, nothing too mysterious, but it is when his best friend Bassanio appears that the pieces begin to come together. Bassanio needs money to travel to try to win Portia, a rich woman, and Antonio quickly agrees to help him, declaring, "My purse, my person, my extremest means / Lie all unlocked to your occasions." (1.1.138-139). This is more than a simple offer of assistance. Not only does Antonio offer his money and his time to Bassanio, but he offers his "extremest means," which is a rather extreme way of agreeing to help someone, even if that someone is a good friend. Consider this statement with the fact that Antonio already knew that Bassanio was going to court a lady and everything comes together. Why is Antonio so melancholy at the play's start? Because he knows that Bassanio will soon be marrying a woman and that the chances that their friendship will ever be anything more are all but gone.
Why, then, does Antonio immediately discourage Solanio's suggestion of love? He may not want to lie because he knows that Solanio means in love with a woman. He may also not want to think about the situation he is in because that would pain him even more. Or, perhaps he has already abandoned his love at this point, knowing it is hopeless, only to have it slightly reinvigorated when Bassanio asks for help. Having read this play before, I know for a fact that this little love triangle just gets more entertaining and even more of those pesky elements that hinder a happy ending rear their ugly heads. But, is it all truly ugly? Would it not be nice to see a happy ending that for once is not traditional. Well, I suppose we can all dream.
-Sarah Bras
4 comments:
I respectfully disagree that Antonio is melancholy about Bassanio getting married at the beginning of the play. I don't think we find out why he is sad. It can't be because Bassanio is getting married because Bassanio doesn't tell him until line 161, very near to the end of the scene. I also don't see anything ambiguous about their friendship. They're close friends. I can't help but think from personal experience in this situation. I've loaned money to people that are close to me in the past, and some of the time it hasn't gotten paid back even though it's been years (at this point I don't care anymore), and I've lent money to people with already outstanding debts. I know what it's like to work thirty hours just to loan someone money, and you don't do it because you have secret desires, but because the relationship you have with that person is worth more than money. I think the message is that I'd be a lousy banker, but it's sometimes great to be my friend. As far as textual evidence that his lending money is not a display of unexpressable homosexual love I think there is some in what Shakespeare tells us about Antonio from the other characters. A very crucial part of the plot is that Antonio lends out money free of interest to multiple people, enough so that it's hurting Shylock's interest rates. If Antonio would loan money free of interest to enough people that it's hurting interest rates for Shylock, it's reasonable to presume that he would go the extra mile for his close friends by lending his good name when he doesn't have money on hand. I agree that it may seem a bit much when Antonio is only insistent that Bassanio be there to see him die, but I'm pretty sure if I was going to have a pound of my flesh cut from me I'd want to see my closest friend first too.
Nice post and nice response, Sarah and Robert. The question of Antonio's sexuality is interesting. It's worth noting that there is more likely to be winking-and-nodding homosexuality in Shakespeare's plays than anything overt. When we come to the last moments of the play, though, we should return to this question, and ask ourselves again what we think of Antonio's "love."
I also disagree. Though I think your interpretation is very interesting, I feel that Antonio's sorrow is so ambiguous that the reader could think of many possible explanations for it that are both difficult to refute or support.I believe this interpretation is taking to much of a modern perspective and though quite intriguing, is probably not what Shakespeare himself intended. My feeling is that the love Shakespeare depicts between these two characters is more of a demonstration of Christian, brotherly love than of homosexual love. The language and manners of Antonio and Bassanio toward one another reminds me of the speech and affection displayed amongst the Twelve Apostles. Considering how religiously charged this play is, perhaps Shakespeare was demonstrating what he believed was appropriate (or maybe idealistic) conduct between two Christian men. This depiction of unconditional love and generosity may serve as a juxtaposition to Shakespeare's characterization of Shylock, or to demonstrate christian hypocrisy. I suppose the intent depends upon if this play is read as being anti-Semitic or a critique of Christians who engage in anti-Semitic behavior.
Post a Comment