The thing that most caught my attention in Act 4 was how both Shylock and Graziano praise Portia (as Balthasar) in mirrored apostrophes. Shylock calls her “noble,” “excellent,” “wise,” “upright,” and “most rightful” all in a span of fewer than sixty lines (241-296). After Portia turns on Shylock with her rule about not drawing blood, Graziano does the same: “upright,” “learned,” ect. (308-318). Why is this?
I focus in on this detail because I selfishly think it will help preserve my image of Shakespeare as a religiously- and culturally-tolerant intellectual who was above making anti-Semitic jokes for a pretty penny. I propose, therefore, that these overdramatic accolades are meant to ridicule religious extremism by satirizing both the Christians’ and Jew’s notion of wisdom. What is religion anyway but faith that one spiritual path is more wise and true than another? Shylock’s idea of justice is to honor a contract signed in blood; Graziano’s idea of justice is to strip the enemy of his identity and re-suit him with the dogma of his foes. Alright, yes, Shylock is hateful, but as many of my peers have already posted, this act against him is intolerable and disgusting. Of course, the source of all this “wisdom” and “righteousness” is Portia, disguised as Balthasar, but we can deduce from Shylock and Graziano’s verbal enthusiasm for her choices that they would have made the same judgments. Thus, if Shylock and Graziano both act according to the dictums of their respective religions, Act 4 plainly satirizes both camps. Thank goodness for the power of interpretation!
As I’ve said before, this play feels very much like a sitcom of sorts—I find allegiances flip-flopping. In the immortal words of Feste, “pleasure must be paid,” and the one thing I dread the most as I anticipate Act 5 is a long soliloquy about Shylock’s epiphany upon realizing the greatness of God or some such other piece of religious propaganda. (I hope it isn’t too much of an insult to Shakespeare to say that I haven’t ruled that out as an option.) If Shylock is going to be the one to pay most dearly for the others’ pleasure, the only satisfying thing would be to see him either deny his compulsory religion or become the worse for it. I pity him and want the final act to somehow level the playing field by making the Christians look at least a little bad.
Perhaps this is the whole point. Perhaps Shakespeare wrote this play just to make us root for one team over the other, to realize our prejudices, to notice our need to categorize everything, including people. What do you all think? I’m sure I’m not the only one who is hesitant to write off Shakespeare as an anti-Semite. Does anyone else have evidence that might further support my claim? If the audience is meant to realize that neither Graziano’s nor Shylock’s interpretation of justice is really just, they must realize that justice is subjective—and who’s to say their notions, or our notions, have any more credence? I like to think that Shakespeare is simply telling us not to take ourselves too seriously, that an old disagreement over practically the same God isn’t worth a pound of flesh or six thousand ducats…it’s worth a laugh, and that’s about it.
2 comments:
First off I'd like to put it out there that I don't want to view Shakespeare as an anti-Semite any more than anyone else, but I have to diagree with the idea you put forth. Although I suppose the scene could be viewed as a criticism of extremist religion, I feel that Graziano's use of the same words/phrases is a direct mocking of Shylock and the way he acted earlier in the scene.
I'd also like to think that even if the play turns out to have an overall anti-Semitic view, that it is more of a commentary on the times as opposed to Shakespeare's actual view.
I definitely agree with not wanting to write Shakespeare off as an unthinking Anti-Semitic, if only because the man was too damn clever by a half to do anything 'unthinkingly.' This being said, I do indeed believe that most of the anti-Semitism in the play is there to play off similar feelings in the audience, and is in fact there to 'make a pretty penny.' However, I don't believe that that is the entire reason. During the courtroom scene, it does seem that Shakespeare is doing some (slightly more subtle) poking in the opposite direction with Graziano--who does mirror Shylock's compliments, but I only, I think, to taunt him with his own words now that the judge has proven to be on their side. Graziano is a jubilant, excitable, and often unthinking character, and I spent most of that scene wishing he would just shut up while knowing it would never occur to him. There may be more undertones here than most people think, but I also think Shakespeare was a fairly pragmatic guy. If it sold, he'd use it.
Post a Comment