The Merchant of Venice is best known for its arguable antagonist, Shylock. In the shadows of the romantic babbling of the elite Antonio and his friends partake in the opening scene, Shylock works to make reality of their imaginings. Two scenes later, Shylock states, “Three thousand ducats. Well.” (1. 3. 1), establishing his identity through the loan request of Bassanio and Antonio. In the greater conversation between Jews and Christians, the perjury of the Jews through a long existing history of European religious reformations created a public character for society to use as a scapegoat. In establishing business interest with loans, Jews were demonized in their “unchristian” character in seeking economic benefits through the misfortunes of others.
The tension and explicate hate Shylock and Antonio have for each other seem to villainies both men versus creating a “good vs. evil” troupe. In detesting Antonio, Shylock says, “Cursed be my tribe if I forgive him” (I. 3. 46-47), alluding to the Christian ideal of redemption and how it’s beyond his Old testament vicinity. In contrast to the first scene, where Antonio friends try to soothe him with compassion and reasoning, this scene depicts a less empathetic side of Antonio. “I am like to call thee so again, to spit on thee again, to spurn thee too” (1. 3. 125-126), are not the words of your loving neighbor. In developing the character of these two men, it is impossible to separate their religious prejudices. In out right calling Shylock’s usage of the ram allegory as the working of the devil (1.3. 94-96), it seems exemplar knowledge of the Old Testament works against Shylock’s humanization.
In their compromise to give a loan, free of interest, under the promise that if not paid back in time will cost Bassanio one pound of his flesh reads as a violent and dated agreement. Like the hammurabi code and laws of the Old World, Shylocks “kindness” operates according to an economic exchange based off of mortality. Already we can see within the first scene that these men live in a material world distant from such realities, where their focus is on their emotions than on their physicalities. Living in the illusion of ports and transitions, Anotino lives in an international intersection of worldly goods, which may contribute to his stated unknown grievance. The introduction of such a fatal contract positions Shylock with a certain knowingness outside of Antonio and his men.
Of course under the humanizing lens of the 21st century, we cannot help but attempt to pull Shylock away from his villainous characterture and shift him towards a sociological light, a man who acts according to circumstance. I’m excited to see how his character develops in accord to the stage.
3 comments:
I too feel that Shylock, once humanized, is a much more sympathetic character. It soon becomes clear that in Shylock's desire to take a pound of flesh from Antonio is based on the the resentment caused by the discrimination that he is forced to endure at the time by Antonio and other Christians. It could also be argued that Shylock and his actions are a product of the environment that he lives in.
I think Shylock, in calling for a pound of flesh as payment for a debt unpaid, is exercising the only kind of power he can really attain. He is constantly persecuted by Antonio as well as other Christians. By agreeing to loan Antonio money, Shylock is placed into a seat of power that he is rarely able to claim. It makes sense that he would want to set up the most vicious and costly terms possible before agreeing to loan someone like Antonio money. He does not know when this opportunity will present itself again and he knows that Antonio will go back to publicly shaming him once his debt is paid. He must exercise his power to the fullest for the short time that he has it; it is one of the few instances where he has some control over the way he is treated.
An interesting point I learned in class on Tuesday was that Medieval Christianity abhorred that taking of interest. Although there may have been other reasons behind his insistence on not taking interest from Bassiano, he does not flutter an eyelid when he responds to Shylock's example of Jacob and Laban (even though in that example Jacob had deceived Laban in the end) and states that his wealth will not sprout offspring like goats and sheep. A very good come back if I may say so myself.
Post a Comment