The Good and the Bad

For the sake of this post, I am going to focus mainly on the beginning of the first scene of act four, where the viewer sees Shylock preparing to take the pound of flesh from Antonio, despite the fact that Bassanio has double what Antonio owes him for Shylock. It seems that the principle is the thing here for Shylock, and it also makes it appear as if the man wanted to take a pound of flesh from Antonio all along. It makes Shylock out to be the villain, being that he refuses to shake the bond and grant any form of mercy to Antonio despite the fact that he had lost everything before. Graziano says of Shylock after watching him sharpen his blade on his shoe: “Not on thy sole but on thy soul, harsh Jew,/Thou mak’st thy knife keen. But no metal can…/half the keenness/Of thy sharp envy [malice]” 4.1.123-135. The contrast to Shylock’s soul and his malice is interesting, because isn’t the soul what is equated to religion? It is possible that here they are equating his wickedness to the fact that he is a Jew.

Shylock’s wickedness continues as the scene goes on and a disguised Portia enters the scene, pretending to be a judge in attempts to get Antonio free of this bond he is currently caught up in. She speaks to him, trying to convince him to cut the bond, but he does not give in to her reasoning, which is often quite clever indeed. Portia asks whether or not he has a surgeon to stop Antonio’s bleeding, and he says he does not which leads Portia to ask him if he do it for charity, Shylock answers: “I cannot find it. ‘Tis not in the bond.” 4.1.257. This shows Shylock as a person who cares only for the bond and the deals that he makes, rather than focusing on the actual person before him who has lost everything due to his ships sinking.

Meanwhile, Antonio manages to, though Shylock was about to kill him by taking a pound of his flesh, get the fine he would have suffered reduced and get half of it in a trust for Jessica and Lorenzo for after Shylock’s death. This paints out Antonio to be the hero. Shylock must basically get rid of all of his fortune—which the viewer  has seen to be very important to him—due to the fact that the bond has been broken after he was seeking to take Antonio’s life. Antonio, though he was nearly killed moments ago by Shylock before Portia’s reasoning saves him, is the kind and caring man who only wants to help reduce the fine, because that is what he must do, even if there is a bit of a second motive in it being that he helps get half of it secured for his friend who has married Jessica.

Though earlier in this play, Shylock seems to be the victim to Antonio, it appears as if Shakespeare has turned the tables on this sympathy that the viewer might have been gaining for Shylock. In the beginning, Shylock accuses Antonio of calling him a dog and spitting on him, to which Antonio does not deny and in fact states he would do again, and yet now he is reducing a fine on Shylock’s welfare even after Shylock attempted to take his life. Shakespeare seems to really want to kill any feelings the viewer may have garnered for Shylock in order to paint  Antonio as the hero here, and really get the point across that, as discussed in class on Friday, the Christians in this play are the generous ones, that would give up all for another man.

Aphorisms & Language

Molly Hone
1.2, lines 1-19. (I cut off the passage at line 19 for this post, before Portia’s predicament and suitors are fully discussed.)

In the first exchange between Portia and her waiting-woman, Nerissa, a simple expression of sadness by the former elicits advice from the latter in the form of multiple aphorisms. Portia responds to these aphorisms with aphorisms of her own that explain her inability and reluctance to follow the advice.

The aphorisms exchanged, such as “It is no mean happiness, therefore to be seated in the mean” (lines 6-7, 1.2.1125, Nerissa), and “It is a good divine that follows his own instructions” (line 14, 1.2.1125, Portia), could seem almost nonsensical to a reader because of their abundance and lack of segue. There are at least 5 clear aphorisms in this passage, and the language of the lines in between them are similar in structure, voice, and function (e.g. “They would be better if well followed” [line 10, 1.2.1125, Nerissa]), rendering the language of the passage mostly aphoristic.

This rapid delivery of the aphorisms, as well as the overall aphoristic tone, suggest that such general advice lacks meaning and importance. This setup could also serve to argue that general advice lacks an adequate applicability to reality. Shakespeare is playing with self-reflexivity in this passage, and instead of creating nonsense he is, presumably, foreshadowing the events of the play.

This self-reflexive setup also seems to comment on internal conflict and moral ambiguity. Portia remarks in the passage that it is not easy to do what one knows is right. Churning out aphorisms like an assembly line is very different from following them. Pondering the actions one may take in a given situation is very different from being in that situation and having to decide on a “right” or beneficial course of action. 

When Portia remarks that the advice will not be able to help her in choosing a suitor, having already previously put the responsibility on herself, not the concept of general advice, she is using the passive voice. Is this an illustration of the alternately weak/strong power that general, aphoristic advice can have? Or is she simply being sarcastic? It seems that her language (“But this reasoning is not in the fashion” [line 19, 1.2.1125]) is playfully, but contradictorially, disowning her previously-stated responsibility. It is interesting, too, how Portia’s words in this line sound so similar to the aphorisms in their passivity. 

This might be a total over-analysis of the passage, but I find that as I read, I have to remember that Shakespeare’s linguistic precision gives each word a lot of weight and purpose, and over-analysis may be difficult to avoid sometimes.

Why Shakespeare is seemingly putting the character of Portia at odds with her own language in this fragment is unclear to me. It might be just a flourish of language, or it might be an important foreshadow of events and themes. Again, I might be completely overanalyzing this short passage and its language. 

Quibbling over Shakespeare's Characters - Portia & Shylock

Something I found interesting about the first act of The Merchant of Venice is Portia’s characterization, which is demonstrated in the predicament regarding her marriage.  It is very evident that Portia isn't exactly content with her father’s method of choosing a husband for her, and yet she is willing to go along with it, despite the fact that her father is deceased and no longer holds authority over her.  Nerissa tells her that her father was a virtuous man and that “holy men at their death have good inspirations,” referring to the lottery idea he devised to choose the proper husband for her (1.2.24-25).  The method behind it seems rather simple - her suitors will choose one of three caskets, one being made of gold, one made of silver, and the third made of lead.  One of them contains a portrait of her, and whoever chooses the casket with her picture within it (most likely the lead one) will marry her.  Her father’s assumption when he makes this arrangement is that the man who chooses the correct casket will be the one who truly loves his daughter, not seeking the wealth, but rather her love (which would suggest the lead casket contains her photograph).  However, this grand scheme leaves no choice up to Portia, who can neither choose who she likes or dislikes.  She says to Nerissa with much disdain, “So this is the will [wish] of a living daughter curbed by the will [testament] of a dead father” desiring to be in control of her life, but revealing her lack of strength and ambition to challenge her father's will (1.2.21-22).  I know the time period for this play definitely reflects the idea of the husband of the household being in charge of family matters, especially their daughters’ futures, but I do wonder why Portia doesn't try to take hold of her life when she is given the opportunity to do so, especially since she finds each suitor (excluding Bassanio) detestable in one way or another - the Neopolitan prince who talks too much of his horse, the brooding County Palatine, and the French lord, Monsieur le Bon, who she describes as being “every man in no man” and even going so far as to say that if she were to marry him she should marry twenty husbands (1.2.35-36, 40, 50, 52-53).  Her unhappiness with her father’s arranged method of having her wed must not be as strong as her compulsion to remain loyal to him.  I have my hopes that Portia will break away from the mold of the societal expectations of females for her time era, but only time will tell.  

As for Shylock, he seems to be have been crafted from the old stereotypes surrounding people of the Jewish faith, especially in their emphasis on monetary importance.  When Shylock says that Antonio is a “good man” Bassanio interprets him as meaning a person with a good head on his shoulders.  Shylock mocks Bassanio and answers “My meaning in saying he is a good man is to have you understand me that he is sufficient [of adequate wealth]” (1.3.13-14).  When Antonio first enters the scene we learn that Shylock hates him for being a Christian, but mostly because he lends out money for free, which brings down the rate of interest for the people of Venice (1.3.37-40).  It makes me wonder if Shakespeare was anti-Semitic or if he just wanted to depict the beliefs and prejudices of that time period as realistically as possible.  It seems a bit overdone in my opinion, but I want to know what someone else thinks about it.

Crossing a Sea of Damned Riddles

In this post I want to explore some of the instances of polysemous language in the play and talk about how Shakespeare creates layers of meaning and subtle irony. To begin with, I first noticed a play on the word “cross” in 2.4 line 35-37 when Lorenzo says about Jessica, “And never dare misfortune cross her foot/Unless she do it under this excuse:/That she is issue to a faithless Jew.” I detected a subtle irony in the word choice of “cross” (which is also of course the central emblem of Christianity) and when I saw that Jessica uses the same phrase at the end of the next scene, 2.5 line 54, I made sure to keep an eye out for later iterations. In the first scene of Act III, Solanio uses the word with even greater irony when he says, “Let me say amen betimes, lest the devil cross my prayer--” (3.1 17-18). The irony is then further accentuated when Shylock enters and Solanio calls him the Jewish manifestation of the devil, so that, in a nut shell, we have a Jewish devil threatening to “cross” Solanio’s prayer for the man (Antonio) who crossed Shylock. Shakespeare gives us rich yet subtle layers of meaning which unveil the polysemous nature of language and, in this specific context, applies it to the religio-cultural situation. The sign of the cross, which should represent Christ’s values and attitude (i.e. forgiveness, compassion, love, etc.) becomes a justification for hatred and racism, and so the Christians cross the Jews and the Jews cross the Christians. People often cite Shylock’s speech about human equality--which ironically is also his justification for revenge--as the hallmark passage from The Merchant of Venice; while I also find his words moving, I think the crux of the play is really Bassanio’s internal monologue about the illusory nature of the world, which brings me back to my point about language and religion. In the monologue, Bassanio says, “In religion,/What damned error but some sober brow/Will bless it and approve it with a text,/Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?” (3.2 77-80). His diction recalls the story of Jessica, who on a number of occasions is called “damned”--such as in 3.5 by Lancelot (the master of language play)--and who, disguised as a boy nonetheless, flees her Jewish father (who also calls her “damned”) and tries to hide under the shadow of the cross so to speak. A few lines later in the monologue Bassanio’s words again resonate ironically with the context of his speech when he says, “How many cowards whose hearts are all as false/As stairs of sand, wear yet upon their chins the beards of Hercules and frowning Mars,/Who, inward searched, have livers white as milk?” (3.2 83-86). First off I love that phrase “as false as stairs of sand,” but also the Hercules name-drop recalls boastful Morocco, who compares himself to Alcides (Hercules) and fears that a lesser man may claim his reward in this dicey game of marriage riddled with uncertainties; it also more explicitly reminds me of Portia’s comparison between Alcides (Hercules) and Bassanio (interestingly, she also uses two names to refer to the same figure). What’s more, Portia recalls a story in which Hercules saves a Trojan princess, not out of love but for the reward, and she couldn’t have chosen a better parable for the situation, because as we know Bassanio has come, wearing the beard of Hercules, to win a reward. His monologue is riddled with hypocrisy and self-deception, yet there is truth in the essence of his words. Before reading the monologue I wondered if any character would see beyond the illusions of wealth and prestige, but it appears that Shakespeare has chosen to keep them in the dark and teach us the lesson through a powerful but subtle use of dramatic irony.

Babbling About Liveries

It’s safe to say that I'm pretty obsessed with words, especially in regards to Shakespeare’s plays because it’s always interesting to see how many uses a word could have during that time. So it’s only natural that I discuss Shakespeare’s use of the word “livery” in the second act as it comes up several times. Did anyone else happen to notice that? Maybe the word is inconsequential or trite, but when a word is repeated, I can’t help but notice it and be interested in delving a little further into it.

According to the OED, a livery is the literally the “characteristic uniform or insignia worn by a household's retainers or servants […] typically distinguished by colour and design […] the dress, uniform, or insignia […] by which a family, etc., may be identified.”

The first – and most interesting – use of the word appears in the opening scene, when Morocco describes his skin as “the shadowed livery of the burnished sun” (2.1.2). While the word is otherwise used to describe clothing – moreover, clothing that defines a person’s worth or status – it is interesting that Morocco describes his own flesh in this manner. On the one hand, this alludes to the racist concept that a person’s skin color defines who they are (much like the color of a livery defines a person’s station). However, he may also be suggesting that, like an article of clothing or social status, race is something to be worn (rather than something to be) and thus, can also be stripped off.

Later, in 2.2, Lancelot mentions to his father, who was looking to present Shylock with a gift, “Give me your present to one Master Bassanio, who indeed gives rare new liveries” (2.2.96-97). Here, Lancelot is comparing Bassanio’s generosity with Shylock’s miserliness (“I am famished in his service”) by way of liveries. While Morocco uses “livery” in a negative connotation as something that unfortunately characterizes a person, Lancelot views it as a gift, something to be proud to wear.

Like I said earlier, I’m sure liveries do not hold as much importance or relevance in this play as, let’s say, the anti-Semitic language or the fiscal language. And maybe, even after fleshing it out, I don’t quite have a definitive answer for its importance, beyond the metaphor of clothing as an identifier. However, I think that is what drew me into it, the idea that it’s not a blatantly obvious metaphor, but is still staring me in the face.

The Women of 'The Merchant of Venice'

During Shakespeare's time, daughters had very little control over their own lives. They were expected to follow the whims of their Father/spouse or be shunned by those closest to them and, in most cases, the rest of society. In The Merchant of Venice we get two female characters, Portia and Jessica, who are given orders by their fathers regarding their futures. Both of these characters seem to be on each end of the spectrum, yet they each appear to still get what they want.

The two women are similar in that they both at one point disguise as men. Portia does it to save spy on and help Antonio with his problem. Her intentions are mostly selfless as it is done for others. Jessica only does it to escape, which is a purely selfish reason. Both these women lack mother figures, which actually appears to be a general 'lack' among a good amount of Shakespeare's plays.

Throughout the play, it is clear that Portia is generally an obedient character. She follows her fathers request that her future husband be chosen through a test rather than herself. Despite him being in his deathbed she still goes along with it. Showing that she is a dutiful daughter. She goes by the rules of her father and her society, and appears to see that as her only option. Jessica on the other hand completely disobeys and betrays her father. She runs away to marry Lorenzo (a christian), Steals her father's money as well as her mothers wedding ring. She thoughtlessly spends 1000 ducats in one shot and trades the wedding ring for a monkey, she also converts to christianity. She has no respect for her father and seems to hate him. She betrays her father in every way possible (stealing/running/converting), and though typically the consequences to these types of actions would be harsh, i believe that it is due to the fact that it all directly harms Shylock, that she is let off the hook.

Respect for the Dead Who Disregard the Living

While reading I.ii of The Merchant of Venice, I paused to consider the ridiculousness of the nature of Portia's conflict. While it is her future that is in question, she has no say or participation in the process of finding her future husband. Instead, she feels the need to follow her deceased father's request for suitors to randomly guess which chest contains Portia's portrait. The "winner" who randomly guesses correctly is then able to marry Portia. In short, this would mean that Portia's father rather put his trust in the dumb luck of strange men than the thoughtful consideration of his own daughter. What does this say about Portia's relationship with her father? She is willing to put her future in the hands of a stranger's luck in order to please her deceased father when he clearly had no respect for Portia's personal wishes.

One may argue that while the process of finding a husband for Portia is based on pure luck in guessing, the men who guess have already agreed to never get married in the event of losing. Agreeing to those terms could show dedication and loyalty to Portia, which would be admirable traits in a future husband. Even though Portia has no say in the matter, at least she can have peace of mind in knowing that the men competing for her are willing to sacrifice their own future in order to chance being with her. In this way, the men would share a commonality with Portia: they both sacrifice their futures in order to please another whom they care about.

On the other hand, it is possible that those who agree to never get married in order to compete for Portia are not being honest. It is not said what the consequences are if they disobey this agreement. After all, Portia’s father is dead and would not be able to punish the men personally. Unless there are others knowledgeable of this agreement and feel inclined to bring justice over traitors, there is no reason that the men would not get away with getting married later, anyway. Regardless of these possibilities, all of Portia’s suitors end up leaving anyway, scared of the potential consequence of losing. Perhaps this was Portia’s father’s intentions in the first place. Maybe he figured that no man would want to risk his future in a game to win his daughter, leaving her to be an old maid. For whatever reason, it is possible that Portia’s father wanted her to never be married.

I think it is fairly safe to say that Portia’s father had no problem disregarding his daughter’s feelings and felt too self-important, even after death, to consider Portia’s input. It is tragic that a dead man’s wishes take precedence over a living woman’s wishes, even when the situation should only involve the feelings of the woman and the suitor of her choice. Nerissa asks Portia to reflect on her suitors, as if this reflection could make any difference in the outcome of the competition. Portia is purely an object, a prize, and strangely, this is what her father intended.

The Merchant of Venice -Tragedy or Comedy?

I have thought about what the ending of this play really meant to the character of Shylock before, and I believe I posted a blog about my thoughts. While I do agree that the others in the courtroom may have been harsh to him, I don't think that they completely drove him to the point of rage as the actor and maker of this video suggest. I think Shylock is supposed to be the Jewish stereotype of the day regardless of how he was treated. The main question plays like this raise is what was the original intents? This also draws attention to how the meaning of the genre of comedy has changed over the years as this contains dark themes when you really think about it.

Final Part III

I chose this clip because I think this scene is the beginning of the most pivotal interaction in all of Merchant of Venice. Portia and Shylock only interact this one time, and yet their encounter has the most damaging ramifications. Also, when they meet Portia is in disguise while Shylock is being scrutinized by an audience (both Shakespeare's reading audience and those at the trial, which I think this film interpretation illustrates nicely,) so one is hiding herself and is able to exert power while the other is exposed and can only react to that exercise of power.

1. What do you think about the decision to have so many extras in the scene? Does the trial being so explicitly public affect how you experience it?

2. To whom is Portia speaking? Is she giving the speech to only Shylock, or to another audience?

3. If Portia is speaking to Shylock, do you think he is listening to her (as Pacino plays him)? If you do not think he is listening to her, do you think he is justified in doing so (is this just a case of a failure to communicate, or do you think that Shakespeare creates two worlds - the Jewish one and the Christian one - that are so different that there simply cannot be any real communication between the two)?

Portia vs. Shylock

Portia vs. Shylock
Portia and Shylock are the two characters who interest me the most in the play because they both find themselves within a hierarchy that marks them as subordinate to the Christian men; Portia because she is a woman and Shylock because he is a Jew. The Christian men are the “norm” against whom everyone else is judged and Portia and Shylock are recognized as “the other.” However, because she is Christian and rich, Portia, in a sense, outranks Shylock, as can be seen in her dismissal of all her former suitors based on stereotypes. This makes Shylock’s “otherness” even more pronounced. This hierarchy pits the two against each other, and I think this is most clearly illustrated when Portia initially tries to persuade Shylock to “consider this, that, in the course of justice, none of us should see salvation: we do pray for mercy; and that same prayer doth teach us all to render the deeds of mercy.” She is essentially asking Shylock to adhere to the status quo and become a Christian, which made her judgment that he should immediately convert less of a surprise. It reminded me of when Antonio said “Hie thee, gentle Jew. The Hebrew will turn Christian; he grows kind,” which makes it clear that the entire momentum of the play has been aimed at ridding Shylock of his Judaism. Her speech also made me wonder who she is referring to when she says “we” and “us all.” Is she talking about the Christians, or is she including Shylock in this collective “we”? In the treatment of the two characters I see a powerplay not just between religions, but also between genders. While Shylock is forced to convert to Christianity, all the women in the play have to dress up and act like men in order to exercise some semblance of agency. In Portia’s case, however, her “conversion” only serves to strengthen the tenants of the social order, because although she manages to get her ring from Bassanio (thereby gaining some sort of autonomy and independence, I assume) she is able to turn back into a woman, while Shylock’s transformation is permanent. It basically robs him of his identity. His being Jewish is how he differentiated himself from the other characters and also how the other characters addressed him, as opposed to using his actual name, and now that categorization no longer applies to him.

Finally, what I find most interesting about the play so far is that that while Venetian law is upheld and therefore Jews and Christians are supposedly allowed to live together and conduct business with one another, the only two prominent Jews in the play both convert to Christianity, either willingly (Jessica, and even so she is still considered a Jew by Lancelot,) or through blatant coercion and duress (Shylock.) Both are co-opted into the dominating Christian social system and Judaism is effectively eradicated (neutralized?) removing the threat Shylock’s Judaism posed to the community – the Christian community, not the overall Venetian trading community – so that the remaining characters in the play can go on to live happily ever after, which I suppose is what makes it a comedy. I also find myself wondering if Shylock, now a Christian, will still be in the same societal position as before, and if not, where it will be in comparison to Portia. I’m tempted to think that Shylock’s real crime wasn’t in trying to kill Antonio, but in refusing to properly fulfill his role as a Jew – meaning he didn’t show the deference to his Christian counterparts that his society demanded.

Women Rule

It’s a strange kind of contradiction that in Shakespeare’s time women were not allowed to act on the stage and yet they tend dominate and/or hold pivotal roles in many of his plays, especially Merchant of Venice.

Although Portia has no control over which partner she ends up with due to her father’s challenge, she holds a vast amount of knowledge and cunning. When Bassanio must leave to go to Antonio’s aid, he relies on Portia’s wealth to offer up to Shylock. And, unknowing to anyone else present in the room, the Judge and attendant are actually Portia and Nerissa dressed as men. It is true that in order to get their voices heard, they have to assume the identities of men, an understandable predicament for this time period, but the fact that Shakespeare makes the women of the play the heroes shows a great deal of support and trust toward the gender, perhaps he is even making a not-so-subtle statement that women are capable of such tasks.

W While the play shows that women are a capable gender on the outside, Shakespeare also shows the power they hold behind closed doors. The phrase “a man is king of his castle until the queen arrives” has been a frequent joke on the lips of many in reference to a woman’s power over a man. I do not mean in the public’s eye, because women were mostly powerless until the recent past, but within the realm of the household. I believed that this phrase was an American invention created in the women’s rights era, however it seems like it or varieties of it was present in Shakespeare’s time as well. A prime example of this power can be found in Act 4, Scene 1 beginning with Bassanio statement, “Antonio, I am married to a wife /Which is as dear to me as life itself./ But life itself, my wife, and all the world /Are not with me esteemed above thy life./ I would lose all, ay, sacrifice them all/ Here to this devil, to deliver you” (lines 277-82). Basically, Bassanio is stating that he would give up his wife for that of his friend’s wife, a grand and pretty statement, but when the judge – his wife! – and Nerissa hear the remarks made by Bassanio and Graziano, they both chafe and Nerissa returns with, “’Tis well you offer it behind her back;/The wish would make else an unquiet house” (lines 288-89). Here, she is warning him that he better be careful unless he wishes to have a fight with his wife. The only unfortunate part is that these words came out of the mouth of what they think is a man, so they have no idea that their wives/women just threatened them. However, the statements alone show that the common principle of a woman ruling her roost is even a part of this time period. Because these women come off as the strong, get-it-done sort of women, it makes me picture them running their households and husbands quite efficiently.

Even their gifts to their husbands portray this control over them. When Portia and Nerissa each gifted their husbands with rings that represented their love, basically “promise” rings, the idea was to ensnare them and have proof of doing so. When the ring comes off, the wife is to understand that their love no longer exists. Later, when Portia tests this love she believes that Bassanio won’t give it up, until the last moment when Graziano chases her down to give it to her. You can almost sense that her plan is to have the ring waiting for him when he returns, possibly sparking a large argument.

"Ring"ing in the Women's Movement

It’s interesting how something like a ring takes on an entirely different meaning in this play. Originally, a ring was given to a woman before and or during the wedding ceremony as a symbol of her devotion and, frankly, her bond to her husband. Sometimes the custom of mothers passing their wedding rings to their daughters or daughter-in-laws came about also as a symbol of their familial love and a non- verbal promise to continue the family tradition. However, we see anything but this occurring in The Merchant of Venice.

Upon declaring that Bassiano has earned the right to marry her, Portia immediately presents him with a ring signifying his promise to be true to her. Her servant, Nerrissa, does a similar deed with her would be husband, Gratiano. This could be seen as merely a way of these women showing affection to their men. It could, until not only do they force them to part with the rings but then they use the rings’ absence as an excuse to not sleep with them. How crafty! Essentially, if this were not a Shakespearean comedy, one could speculate that this ploy could be Portia’s method of rebelling against her father’s will and maintaining a firm grip on her life. Realistically, Portia has most likely accepted her fate to marry some random guy that happens to value anything but his wallet. Convincing Bassanio to give her the ring in the guise of her cousin had to be her personal test of his character. The is reminiscent of Penelope asking Odyseus to move their bed to see if he still loved her on his return as much as he did on his departure.

The other time the loss of a ring gets highlighted is in Tubal’s story to Shylock. The first time I read that Jessica gave away her mother’s ring to buy A MONKEY, I was appalled. I don’t care how much you hate your mother, family, etc.; I found that inconceivably cold hearted. But, because we are reading a play, there’s a reason for it. The significance of the ring has very little to do with her mother. The first and last time we ever hear about the woman is when Shylock relates to Tubal when he gave her the ring years ago. She gave it away because it symbolized a responsibility that she has forsaken. One would imagine that Jessica’s Jewish mother would want her to pass on the culture and traditions of her heritage to any and all of her children. Her presence in Genoa at the time of the exchange meant that she wanted nothing to do with her heritage. I don’t know if there was any reason why Shakespeare specifically chose a monkey, or if it could have been any other animal or object. Regardless of whether she bought a monkey or a monocle wearing unicorn, Jessica made it verbally clear that she desired to be a Christian in Act 3 scene 5.

It’s rather ironic that in a play that begins with very strong willed men, we meet three equally strong women that seize the power to govern their lives. Though we as modern readers may have expected at least one woman to put up some sort of fight against the social norms of the day, it is still surprising to actually see it occur not once or twice, but thrice.

Cash Rules Everything Around the Merchant of Venice

The first Act of the Merchant of Venice quickly introduces us to the main characters and gives us an idea of the plot, although we’re still pretty much in the dark. The details of Portia’s test still aren’t too clear, so we’re made to focus more on the characters. The two most interesting characters, Antonio and Shylock, appear to be the main focus of the story overall.

Antonio’s a remarkable character simply because we don’t know all too much about him. The opening scene has his friends speaking for him, and through this, we learn of his wealth, his virtue and his dedication to his friends. Antonio and Bassanio have a distinct bond, one that appears to be deeper than that of Antonio and Graziano, for example. Bassanio has no issue asking for money from Antonio to fund his scheme, and Antonio has no issue giving it to him: “I pray you, good Bassanio, let me know it,/And if it stand as you yourself still do,/Within the eye of honour, be assured/My purse, my person, my extremest means/Lie all unlocked to your occasions” (1.1.135-139). Their friendship is one that is rarely seen outside of literature, and it appears that Antonio hasn’t heard that you shouldn’t loan money to your friends. I’m anxious to see how this will turn out for the two, and if their friendship will stand against the troubles that are about to arise.

Shylock’s character is undeniably tied directly to money. His speech is calculated and professional, and he seems to always be verifying the tenets of some unseen deal, as if he’s constantly wary of being caught in a bind and getting screwed. Shylock’s infatuation with money, as well as the presence and importance of money in the lives of all the characters in the play, become a central theme of the story. I couldn’t help but recall the opening lines to the Kurt Vonnegut novel, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater: “A sum of money is a leading character in this tale about people, just as a sum of honey might properly be a leading character in a tale about bees.” The money acts as a separate entity that influences characters on its own. No one character truly has a control over it, despite what Antonio says about not being concerned with his finances. I haven’t read Merchant of Venice before, but it’s pretty obvious that the money is going to complicate matters extraordinarily.

Aside from his infatuation with money, Shylock was particularly interesting to me for another reason: After some research (read: Wikipedia), I learned that typical portrayals of Shylock have changed drastically over the years. Initially, he would be played by a clown, to be seen as a greedy fool. This image evolved to a more devilish figure, tempting and damning the other characters by dangling the money over their head, like a dog reaching for scraps. It was only fairly recently that Shylock has been viewed as a more sympathetic character. Could this be tied to the fact that the Jewish faith has become less demonized as the world has grown more secular? As tolerance has become more important in our global society, the image of the Jewish people has typically moved from one of wicked outcasts in a Christian world to a mostly peaceful religion that has really gotten the short end of the stick over the years. My view might be influenced by the fact that I myself am a Jew, but regardless of personal beliefs, it’s very interesting to examine not only how Shylock has evolved over the years, but why he has gone through these changes. Hopefully we will explore this further in class.

Shakespeare's View of Love

As an English major and literary enthusiast, I have read and seen various Shakespearean plays, and have read a good amount of his poetry. If nothing else, I took from my experience studying Shakespeare that the man can write and philosophize about love -- between different types of people, different kinds of love, how love affects certain situations, etc. By reading the first act of The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare's critique of love is not as clear to see.

Granted, it's only the first act, and yes, I know, not much has really happened in terms of plot development. But to reiterate a few previous comments, I also find it peculiar that we are still left in the dark about Antonio's reason for being so down-trodden at the beginning of the play. Another idea on the blog was why Antonio gave his word to lend Bassanio money so eagerly and easily. I think Shakespeare is setting up a relationship between love and money. Antonio, as stated in the first scene, is not depressed because of love, yet he gives his money to Bassanio so he can court an heiress. He denies love himself but encourages his best friend to find his "true love" by fueling the hope with money.

Another reason why I believe there is a relationship between love and money that we are yet to fully understand is because of the fate of Portia's marriage. Her father is described as "a moral man", yet his idea that whichever suitor chooses the box with the gold wins Portia's love comes off as careless and irrelevant.

All that being said, the opening act is intriguing and exciting like most plays by Shakespeare. I sense some irony in the works as well as some great plot twists, but at this point one can only speculate on what's to come.

The Merchant of Venice - Act I

One of the first things I noticed while reading The Merchant of Venice was that Antonio and Bassanio are immediately set up as being different from their other friends. The play opens with Antonio speaking with Solanio and Salerio, who leave when Bassanio arrives with Lorenzo and Graziano, saying that they leave him (Antonio) with “better company” and that the new arrivals are “worthier friends.” Lorenzo and Graziano also depart almost immediately after encountering Antonio. I’m left wondering why this is; is it simply because Shakespeare wanted to set up Antonio and Bassanio as the protagonists? Or are the others of a lower class? I also found it interesting that Bassanio pokes fun at Graziano after he leaves, much like friends would in a similar situation today. Bassanio tells Antonio that Graziano speaks constantly, but never says anything worthwhile. It is unclear to me whether he meant it as an insult or a joke though.

Although we’ve only read the first act of the play, my favorite scene so far was our introduction to Portia and Nerissa. I felt that the dialogue between the two women flowed very well, almost better than the dialogue between the other characters. I also felt that the dialogue in this scene (1.2) had more comedic aspects throughout it. Even though I felt bad that Portia was being forced to choose a husband from a select group as opposed to being able to choose on her own, I also found it amusing that she couldn’t find any redeeming qualities in any of the suitors. Another thing that I noticed in this scene was that Portia seems to speak more than almost anyone else in the play so far, except for possibly Shylock. Is there a reason for this, or is it just because of the questions she is answering?

We are asked, in our reading questions, to consider the character of Shylock and even in the introduction to the play in the Norton we are asked to consider whether or not the portrayal is anti-Semitic in any way. The character is obviously educated and he speaks well and at length, throughout scene 1.3. At this point in the play, however, I’m unclear as to whether his portrayal is anti-Semitic or not. Based on what took place during the scene, it seems that Shakespeare may just be portraying anti-Semitism as it is at the time, as opposed to taking a side about it. We learn that Antonio has, in the past, insulted and spit on Shylock, presumably only because he is Jewish. On the other hand, Shylock tells the audience outright that he “hate[s] him for he is a Christian” (1.3.38). This makes it hard to tell what the intended portrayal of ant-Semitism is in the play because both characters dislike each other based on their religions. I also noticed that Shylock is one of the more comedic characters we’ve met in the play so far and I wonder if his sarcasm is meant to make him more or less desirable. Personally, I seem to like his character more when he is mocking Antonio and Bassanio (around 1.3.110) because of the humor, but I’m unsure if this is intended or not.

Questions raised in "Merchant of Venice"

Something that really affected me, or that I felt I could expand upon, was when Antonio says to Graziano: "I hold the world as the world, Graziano- / A stage where every man must play a part, / And mine a sad one"(1.1.77-79). Upon first reading this, I felt as if it evoked sympathy in the reader or audience. The play opens with the first character feeling sad, so of course the audience is most likely going to go along with it. It is as if Antonio is playing up his sadness. yes, he's sad, but he doesn't know why. Is there reason to dwell on it? Personally, I found it almost ironic that a character in a play would say something like that. An actor would be playing a character who is playing a different role themselves. Also, these lines made me think that someone who must "play a part" is definitely not being who they really are. Perhaps Antonio realizes that him being sad is not part of who he truly is. I also feel that the sadness may be hiding something more complex. Antonio's line "A stage where every man must play a part" also made me think of every other character's part in the play as I continued to read.
After reading Act Two, I questioned whether the plan Portia's father made will come into play later on in Merchant of Venice. Portia's father's idea was that her suitors must choose from three chests of gold, silver, and lead. If they choose the one with her portrait then they can marry her. Although Bassiano is after Portia, I somehow see (and I may be wrong) Antonio having to choose from the chests since he will need money to pay back Shylock. I also realized how Bassiano and Portia have thought of each other separately. As we can already see, Bassiano plans on going to Portia. I think that since Portia seems to realize he is most deserving, she will somehow go to him too. I believe that Portia already thinks Bassiano is the one since at the end both her and Nerissa seem to be relieved when his name is mentioned.
At the end of Act One, having not been very familiar with Merchant of Venice, I was left question the part of Shylock and how his pact with Antonio will go. Antonio agrees that if he cannot pay Shylock back he will have "an equal pound / Of [his] flesh to be cut off and taken / In what part of [his] body pleaseth [Shylock]"(1.3.145-7). Clearly, a pound of flesh is more than the money Antonio owes him. I think that at first, or at least at the end of this scene, Antonio only sees it as a joke. As Shylock began to mention Christians more and more I feel that the pound of flesh he wants is not just between him and Antonio but is more about his resentment towards Christians as a whole. The flesh seems more important than the money Antonio would owe him.
As a whole, I feel that Act One opened a lot of questions that will hopefully be answered as the play progresses. The main questions that I feel have been raised are: What is the root of Antonio's sadness? Will Portia choose Bassiano later on? and How will the pact between Shylock and Antonio end up playing out?