The Merchant of Venice

The Merchant of Venice Themes

• 26 April 2010 6:13 pm

Feminism and women’s roles

During an age in which women’s roles in society (and literature) were strictly limited, this drama seems to give us a rather unique glimpse of early feminism. It is difficult before and indeed for some time after this period to find as influential and commanding a female character as we find in the character of Portia. She is introduced to the audience as a character who is the victim of circumstances; i.e. the restrictions imposed by her father’s strange will. She says she is “weary of this great world” and has no free will in her choice of husband. She entreats Bassanio to be gentle with her as she is a mere girl without education and worldly experience yet goes on to refute this self effacement with her ultimate triumph in court. Not only does she triumph over Shylock but also over Bassanio who by her trick with the ring, is brought to subjugation and has to promise to “never again break faith”. There is also an element of legal trickery which parallels the court scene when she initially presents the ring with the admonition that if Bassanio should part with it in any way “let it presage the ruin of your love”. At the end of the play Portia’s character has transformed herself into a woman who is completely in control. She even takes credit for the safe return of Antonio’s ships and also for Shylock’s legacy to Lorenzo and Jessica which was actually a gift of Antonio and not Portia. As with modern feminist works the male characters are downplayed.: Antonio gets himself into a rather stupid situation (notwithstanding the actual legality of the pound of flesh) and seems like a rather weak character. Bassanio and his friends, including Gratiano and Lorenzo seem intent on a sort of continuous rake’s progress. Portia and Nerissa taunt Bassanio and Gratiano with their own brand of licentiousness by (falsely ) claiming a casual sexual encounter with “The Doctor” and “The Clerk”. Again the male characters of Bassanio and Gratiano are shown as ineffectual. Bassanio lost his money through his prodigal youth whilst his friend Gratiano has nothing worth saying (“talks an infinite deal of nothing”). Lorenzo for all his professed love of Jessica (when did they ever have a chance to meet?) is also penniless. Shylock (notwithstanding his human qualities) is evil, crazy and gullible to the courtroom trickery. Lancelot is a corrupt fool. The princes Aragon and Morocco are laughably abhorrent. But the female characters are intelligent, resourceful, independent and reliable. The play is constructed without too much background information about the characters whom we have to accept as they present themselves. Unlike for example Jane Austen who goes into considerable genealogic detail to achieve a realistic structure. So the play whilst being very non-realist and with many improbabilities nevertheless has a strong emotional impact upon the audience . We may note these improbabilities logically but they do not detract from the incredible emotional force of Portia’s ultimate triumph in what may be the first “feminist” work of English Literature.

Shylock and the antisemitism debate

The play is frequently staged today, but is potentially troubling to modern audiences due to its central themes, which can easily appear antisemitic. Critics today still continue to argue over the play’s stance on antisemitism.

The antisemitic reading

English society in the Elizabethan era has been described as antisemitic. English Jews had been expelled in the Middle Ages and were not permitted to return until the rule of Oliver Cromwell. Jews were often presented on the Elizabethan stage in hideous caricature, with hooked noses and bright red wigs, and were usually depicted as avaricious usurers; an example is Christopher Marlowe’s play The Jew of Malta, which features a comically wicked Jewish villain called Barabas. They were usually characterized as evil, deceptive, and greedy.

During the 1600s in Venice and in some other places, Jews were required to wear a red hat at all times in public to make sure that they were easily identified. If they did not comply with this rule they could face the death penalty. Jews also had to live in a ghetto protected by Christians, supposedly for their own safety. The Jews were expected to pay their guards.

Readers may see Shakespeare’s play as a continuation of this antisemitic tradition. The title page of the Quarto indicates that the play was sometimes known as The Jew of Venice in its day, which suggests that it was seen as similar to Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta. One interpretation of the play’s structure is that Shakespeare meant to contrast the mercy of the main Christian characters with the vengefulness of a Jew, who lacks the religious grace to comprehend mercy. Similarly, it is possible that Shakespeare meant Shylock’s forced conversion to Christianity to be a “happy ending” for the character, as it ‘redeems’ Shylock both from his unbelief and his specific sin of wanting to kill Antonio. This reading of the play would certainly fit with the antisemitic trends present in Elizabethan England.

Hyam Maccoby argues that the play is based on medieval morality plays in which the Virgin Mary (here represented by Portia) argues for the forgiveness of human souls, as against the implacable accusations of the Devil (Shylock). On this reading, the Merchant is notably more antisemitic than The Jew of Malta, in which there are no good Christian characters and the Jewish villain seems to be regarded by the author with a certain covert sympathy.

The sympathetic reading

Many modern readers and theatregoers have read the play as a plea for tolerance, noting that Shylock is a sympathetic character. They cite as evidence that Shylock’s ‘trial’ at the end of the play is a mockery of justice, with Portia acting as a judge when she has no right to do so. The characters who berated Shylock for dishonesty resort to trickery in order to win. In addition, Shakespeare gives Shylock one of his most eloquent speeches:

Shakespeare presents an array of unique and complex characters in his many plays from Julius Caesar to Romeo, from Hamlet to Macbeth; the play “The Merchant of Venice” stars one of these numerous individuals, a Jew named Shylock. This Jew is one of the very few members of this religion to appear in a Shakespearean play, let alone to have a main part. It mainly is because of his religion Shylock is ridiculed throughout the comedy. However it is arguable that this is not the only reason, being overshadowed by his selfish personality that endears him neither to the other characters nor indeed to the audience. Yet Shakespeare did not always portray Shylock as entirely detestable, putting him in unfortunate situations where the audience cannot but have some sympathy for him.

It is an open question whether the audience would sympathize with Shylock when his mutinous daughter, his only family member, deserts him to marry a Christian taking with her many valuable possessions, including the first ring Shylock gave to his late wife. The audience may think this was a good decision and that Shylock deserves to lose his only daughter, Jessica, as we earlier discover that “the house is hell”, Indicating that Jessica is very unhappy living with her father. Also, we soon learn that Jessica is “ashamed” to be her father’s daughter, which can either earn sympathy or lack of sympathy. The way that Shylock deals with his daughter also affects the audience’s sympathy for his character, for his reaction is anger. Were Shylock to break into tears the audience would be more likely to feel sympathy for him. Presuming that Shakespeare knew how an audience reacts to certain emotions, such as hurt, fear or anger, he had the opportunity to lead the audience to sympathise with this character; however, he chose not to—at this point. Other evidence that Shakespeare didn’t want too much sympathy for Shylock at this point in the play is that he informs the audience of Jessica’s departure through other character’s gossip where they are portraying Shylock’s desperate situation as a comical affair, thus keeping the play in a comical, instead of depressing, theme. Instead of Shylock, we see Solanio and Salarino telling the story, so the audience feels they are ‘in on the joke’, no matter how cruel the joke may be. But when Jessica takes her late mother’s ring, the first ring Shylock gave to his wife (most likely an engagement ring), most audience members of any century would understand how this would hurt Shylock’s feelings and that he has every right to be angry.

Shylock’s seems unable to control his anger when it seems to burst out in the “Hath not a Jew eyes” speech. Hath not a Jew eyes” speech is a powerful speech that, when first performed, asserted that Jews and Christians are equal as human beings. In Elizabethan times, there was a great amount of prejudice towards Jews, but this speech explains how there are no differences between the humanity of members of the two religions; for example, “hurt with the same weapons”, ”heal’d by the same means”. It is likely that when the audience left at the end of the play, they felt different about their intolerance if they paid any attention to the speech. They may have felt sympathy for Shylock, hence Jews in general. A speech that shows how unfairly Jews were being treated is a rather profound topic for a comedy involving sexual euphemisms and cross-dressing. Some of the audience was almost certainly taken aback by this sudden change from comedy. The more common and poorer theatregoers were more violent towards the Jews in their normal life, as compared to the rich and educated. Since the rich typically viewed theatrical performances from the better seats, where discussions could be carried on with civility, therefore, it could be argued that a powerful plea for tolerance in a public theatre would have a stronger effect on them. So explaining to them how Jews are human would have more effect on their attitude toward Jews.

The modern day audience’s religious or racial views are definitely going to be prominently different to those of an Elizabethan audience. The modern day audience is likely to feel more sympathy for Shylock because of political influence against anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and possibly due to the changes in attitudes toward the play through the generations. Any modern day audience would undeniably feel more sympathetic toward Shylock because of the Jews’ mistreatment in World War II.. The Elizabethan audience probably shared the attitudes of Antonio, Solario, Solanio and Gratiano, i.e., no real sympathy towards Shylock.

Shylock seems to have been forgotten at the end of the play; he does not have an ending that ‘ties up all loose ends’, like the rest of the characters receive. Rather, he just vanishes, defeated. This could be Shakespeare’s way of showing that just because he is now a Christian, he is still not like the other performers, and he is still an alien or a foreigner. Or perhaps Shakespeare did not want the audience to know about the horrible end to Shylock’s story. If ‘the merchant of Venice’ actually happened, a realistic outcome for Shylock after his conversion from Jew to Christian would have meant being cast out of the Jewish community in Venice, and therefore no longer being allowed to live in the ghetto. Furthermore, Shylock would still not be accepted by the Christians, as they would feel that Shylock was still the Jew he once was. Now Shylock would have been hated by both parts of the community: the Jews, for betraying their religion, and the Christians, not really accepting his conversion.

Ultimately, the sympathy of the audience would depend on the time period, and the values and beliefs of the individuals watching this play.

Influence on antisemitism

Regardless of what Shakespeare’s own intentions may have been, the play has been made use of by antisemites throughout the play’s history. One must note that the end of the title in the 1619 edition “With the Extreme Cruelty of Shylock the Jew…” must aptly describe how Shylock was viewed by the English public. The Nazis used the usurious Shylock for their propaganda. Shortly after Kristallnacht in 1938, “The Merchant of Venice” was broadcast for propagandistic ends over the German airwaves. Productions of the play followed in Lübeck (1938), Berlin (1940), and elsewhere within the Nazi Territory.

The depiction of Jews in English literature throughout the centuries bears the close imprint of Shylock. With slight variations much of English literature up until the 20th century depicts the Jew as “a monied, cruel, lecherous, avaricious outsider tolerated only because of his golden hoard”.

Character study

It is difficult to know whether the sympathetic reading of Shylock is entirely due to changing sensibilities among readers, or whether Shakespeare, a writer who created complex, multi-faceted characters, deliberately intended this reading.

One reason for this interpretation is that Shylock’s painful status in Venetian society is emphasized. To some critics, Shylock’s celebrated “Hath not a Jew eyes” speech (see above) redeems him and even makes him into something of a tragic figure. In the speech, Shylock argues that he is no different from the Christian characters. Detractors note that Shylock ends the speech with a tone of revenge: “if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” However, those who see the speech as sympathetic point out that Shylock says he learned the desire for revenge from the Christian characters: “If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”

Even if Shakespeare did not intend the play to be read this way, the fact that it retains its power on stage for audiences who may perceive its central conflicts in radically different terms is an illustration of the subtlety of Shakespeare’s characterizations.

Although this may seem a very anti-Jewish play when judged by politically correct modern standards, it may be actually pro-Jewish by the standards of the time. The playwright perhaps knew that he could not at that time satisfy public sentiment by creating a “good” Jewish character in Shylock. The audience would not accept it. But he created a good Jew in Jessica which the audience would have accepted because she becomes a Christian. Shakespeare is saying to his audience “No let’s not kill them ; let’s integrate them”. For the time this might have been quite a radical idea. Shakespeare may have had information that The Jews would some day return to England. So Shakespeare shows us “an evil Jew” who is brought under the control of The State. He has “sold” the comtemporary audience the idea that The Jews are not so bad; they can be controlled and they are very like us Christians.

Furthermore, in the trial Shylock represents the Jewish side in contrast to the Christian one in a matter of highest importance: Justice (Jewish, Old Testament) is confronted with Mercy (Christian, New Testament). In the Christian view mercy is the decisive step after justice is reached. Therefore the Chrstians in the courtroom urge mercy. Beside the fact, that Shylock as a Jew is not in duty to give mercy, he is not able as well, because for this you need love. He doesn’t find love at all, but hate. Shakespeare explains this in Shylocks monologue very clearly. To be merciful despite the hate nevertheless you have to love your enemy (New Testament). That means in fact that the Christans in the courtroom urge Shylock to behave like a very true Christian by loving his enemies although they themselves failed even in loving just their neighbours (the Jews) in the past before. If Shylock would had given mercy on his own, he would had been a better Christian than they all would have been in lifetime probably.

Sexuality in the play

Antonio, Bassanio

Antonio’s unexplained depression—”In sooth I know not why I am so sad”—and utter devotion to Bassanio has led some critics to theorize that he is suffering from unrequited love for Bassanio and is depressed because Bassanio is coming to an age where he will marry a woman. In his plays and poetry Shakespeare often depicted strong male bonds of varying homosociality, which has led some critics to infer that Bassanio returns Antonio’s affections despite his obligation to marry:

ANTONIO: Commend me to your honourable wife:

Tell her the process of Antonio’s end,

Say how I lov’d you, speak me fair in death;

And, when the tale is told, bid her be judge

Whether Bassanio had not once a love.

BASSANIO: 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. (IV,i)

In his essay “Brothers and Others”, published in The Dyer’s Hand, W. H. Auden describes Antonio as “a man whose emotional life, though his conduct may be chaste, is concentrated upon a member of his own sex.” Antonio’s feelings for Bassanio are likened to a couplet from Shakespeare’s Sonnets: “But since she pricked thee out for women’s pleasure,/ Mine be thy love, and my love’s use their treasure.” Antonio, says Auden, embodies the words on Portia’s leaden casket: “Who chooseth me, must give and hazard all he hath.” Antonio has taken this potentially fatal turn because he despairs, not only over the loss of Bassanio in marriage, but also because Bassanio cannot requite what Antonio feels for him. Antonio’s frustrated devotion is a form of idolatry: the right to live is yielded for the sake of the loved one. There is one other such idolator in the play: Shylock himself. “Shylock, however unintentionally, did, in fact, hazard all for the sake of destroying the enemy he hated; and Antonio, however unthinkingly he signed the bond, hazarded all to secure the happiness of the man he loved.” Both Antonio and Shylock, agreeing to put Antonio’s life at a forfeit, stand outside the normal bounds of society. There was, states Auden, a traditional “association of sodomy with usury”, reaching back at least as far as Dante, with which Shakespeare was likely familiar. (Auden sees the theme of usury in the play as a comment on human relations in a mercantile society.)

Other interpreters of the play regard Auden’s conception of Antonio’s sexual desire for Bassanio as questionable. Michael Radford, director of the 2004 film version starring Al Pacino, explained that although the film contains a scene where Antonio and Bassanio actually kiss, the friendship between the two is platonic, in line with the prevailing view of male friendship at the time. Jeremy Irons, in an interview, concurs with the director’s view and states that he did not “play Antonio as gay”.

Source: WikiPedia

• Filed under
  • Study Guide