The Merchant of Venice: Policy & Possesion by Elaina Montague
Comments(6) I personally am fascinated by Shylock’s demand to uphold the bond, and what the flesh means to him.
In both the Jew of Malta and the Merchant of Venice, there are elements of policy and bonds that seem to shape the Jewish identity for Barabas and Shylock. When digging deeper into these characters, they are very possessive. They own things blindly, like their daughters. The father-daughter relationships seem to have no shared sense of history, or appreciation for individuality. Neither Jew sees his daughter for who she truly is and, as mentioned in class, both Jews talk about and interact with their daughters like they are merely property, props, or currency.
Additionally, Shylock is narrowly driven, beyond reason, for one pound of Antonio’s flesh. This fascinates me. He justifies the trade-off when talking to Solanio and Salerio by reminding them that it is a bond, and a bond must be upheld. Unfortunately for Antonio, the flesh is an aspect of the bond: “let him (Antionio) look unto his bond” (III.i.**). However, Salerio—right-mindedly so—does not understand why Shylock would ever want Antonio’s flesh and blood, and asks him why. The trade between Shylock and Antonio is over the 3,000 duckets, so, if he were really driven to get money. Simply, Shylock would take the money and move on. The law is on his side, and to some extent that matters to Shylock. I can’t help bust ask myself, why on earth would he want flesh? Flesh suggests that there is no desire for a death or termination to occur, directly speaking.
One perspective might say that this is all Shylock knows how to deal with things, simply to quantify them. The flesh is something to own, and he wants it in a very precise amount, similar to money and diamonds. On the other hand, I have a feeling that Shylock is feeling very wronged by his fleeing daughter and, perhaps, is seeking control. Part of me makes me wonders if the flesh symbolizes a relationship lost, the loss of his own flesh and blood, his daughter Jessica. This point is emphasized as he repeats it twice to Solanio and Salerio. Both Jews’ shift in character are marked by the collapse of their father-daughter relationships. Shylock’s language in this scene indicates that he is feeling he lacks control; he describes “my own flesh and blood to rebel!” (III.i.). This sheds light on how he views his daughter. His statements about flesh and blood are really interesting because in reality these things are parts of the body system (that really don’t do much independent from the human body). But here, he gives flesh and blood an intense human-like quality and compares it with those the actions his daughter has taken up. He is personifying an object and is hurting because by defining his daughter as an object, he thought she would never be expected to do him harm.
In my opinion, Shylock loves control and possession because it gives him comfort. I would assume that is why he adheres to the law so much, and why he has managed his money and relationships in a similar fashion. Money and law are manageable, logical, and rather stable (at least in his practice). He transfers this mode of thinking into his daughter’s life, who finds his lack of morality and passion so shameful that she runs away and spends his money in a rather uncontrolled matter, (like on a pet money—which sets him off, too). Later in the scene with Salerio and Solanio, Shylock describes how the flesh will “feed his revenge” (III.i.49–61) and then goes forth in listing all of the injustices Antonio have inflicted upon him because he is a Jew. For him, these injustices were lessons learned; now, he will mistreat people just as he has been mistreated—he sinks to their level, or lower (III.i.50). Furthermore in the jail scene, when Antonio is carried away Shylock reminds Antonio of how he was mistreated when Antonio called him a dog. Then, bond and law is repeated throughout the scene, which makes me question if he has a clear grasp of what he desires to do.
Now, some of the questions I pitch to you are:
Why does Shylock want Antonio’s flesh? Do you agree that there is something else there?
What makes Antonio his target? Do you believe that it is because of the injustices Antonio has inflicted upon Shylock? What may Antonio symbolize?
Some bigger questions I would like to ask is: do you pick up an anti-Semitic reading, or were the writers looking to point out an area for social change through tolerance of these groups? What role does law and policy play into this bigger picture?
Also, this is for your entertainment.
This is a parody of William Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice” from Sesame Street’s “Monsterpieces!”. It’s not entire true to the story, however, you can hear echoes of Shylock in Grover’s speech!
It truly does seem intriguing that Shylock is so bent on getting a pound of Antonio’s flesh. I don’t think it’s because Shylock is this mad lunatic that people might mistake him for. He has depth. I believe that he is a man who has been wronged. He has been spat upon and mocked, despite that fact that he is a professional and wealthy.
I believe that the bond has so much meaning to him because he knows that if it is cancelled or pardoned, then others in the court of law in Venice will use his case as a standard. If he is wronged, then others may be wronged, too. I think that Shylock feels empowered and supported, something unusual for him, as he is a ‘foreigner’ in his own home, much like Barabas in Malta.
I don’t get an anti-Semetic vibe from Shakespeare in ‘The Merchant of Venice.’ I think he tells the serious story of a man who has been wronged in a ‘light’ comedy. Shylock’s story told in the play is so human, a bit manipulative and unnerving to a comedy-seeking crowd, but brilliant. I really think that Shakespeare was trying to hit a nerve with people.
As for the Sesame Street clip, I couldn’t stop laughing. It’s true though! Grover speech somewhat imitates Shylock, though I don’t recall any tickling in the play. Regardless, it made my day.
I enjoyed reading your post and I like how you compare the two fathers in the two plays. For your last question I believe that these plays are anti-Semitic because they both portray Jews as villains. But I guess it can also mean that the plays want social change because the way the Christians treat the Jews portrays them as the villains. They talk about mercy but they never show mercy to the Jews so it makes them hypocrit villains.
I agree with you, Shylock’s insistance on gaining a pound of Antonio’s flesh surely is interesting. In looking at this very obsession I think it is important look at the significance of the pound of flesh. In many of the plays we have read characters have lost different body parts and in losing those “parts” of themselves something more has been subtracted and stripped from them, perhaps a bit of their humanity. Also, I find that it is the piece of Antonio’s flesh that Shylock wants. In class we had discussed the fact that the flesh Shylock wanted to remove was the flesh over Antonio’s heart, the heart being the place where Christian faith lies. I think that Shylock’s insistance on that particular pound of flesh is almost purposeful meant to make a jab at something which people tend to hold dearest- their faith. One could argue that this avenue of revenge was almost befitting for just as “the Christians” took what was seemingly dearest to Shylock- his money he was going to take what was “supposedly” dearest to a Christian- their faith.
As mentioned above I also do not believe that The Merchant of Venice as a strong anti-Semetic undertone. I concede that Shylock’s character adheres to accepted stereotypes of the time, such as his money-lending practice. Overall, I do not believe Shakespeare intended to ridicule or mock the Jewish faith, rather he attempted to construct a character that not only conformed to Elizabethan perceptions, but one that was larger than the play itself and could exist outside the lines of the play. In my opinion Shakespeare was able to accomplish this task, especially at the end of the play when we see the defeated Shylock. It is at this point where he becomes a person to be pitied and sympathized. It is at this point where he is most human.
I agree with you, Shylock’s insistance on gaining a pound of Antonio’s flesh surely is interesting. In looking at this very obsession I think it is important look at the significance of the pound of flesh. In many of the plays we have read characters have lost different body parts and in losing those “parts” of themselves something more has been subtracted and stripped from them, perhaps a bit of their humanity. Also, I find that it is the piece of Antonio’s flesh that Shylock wants. In class we had discussed the fact that the flesh Shylock wanted to remove was the flesh over Antonio’s heart, the heart being the place where Christian faith lies. I think that Shylock’s insistance on that particular pound of flesh is almost purposeful meant to make a jab at something which people tend to hold dearest- their faith. One could argue that this avenue of revenge was almost befitting for just as “the Christians” took what was seemingly dearest to Shylock- his pride he was going to take what was “supposedly” dearest to a Christian- their faith. And just as he was treated unfairly for being a Jew (the physical sign of being a Jew being circumsised) he wanted to take away the very thing that makes a Christian a Christian (faith lying in the heart).