Most of Shakespeare’s tragedies, such as Othello, the Merchant of Venice, and Titus Adronicus, have a character or set of characters that embody the immoral and depraved aspect of humanity. Such villains are often manipulative and scheming individuals who seek to bring sorrow and grief to other characters within the play for a multitude of reasons, some of which include pleasure, revenge, and social aspirations. The character of Edmund, the son of the Earl of Gloucester, is one that stands out in Shakespeare’s Tragedy of King Lear because of his embodiment of the characteristics typical to the Shakespearian villain.

Edmund is the illegitimate offspring of Gloucester. Society and to a lesser extent his father mock him for his secondary status within the social hierarchy. He resents society for shunning him due to his birth status, for branding him with the title of bastard and for preventing him from legally claiming the recognition he believes is his birthright. He further resents his legitimate half-brother Edgar because of society’s acknowledgement of his claim to their father’s title, wealth, and name. It becomes evident in Act I scene 2 that Edmund aims to ensure that he “the base shall top the legitimate” Edgar (I.2.15). This resentment, harbored for many years, is ultimately acted upon when Edmund seeks to breach the strong bond between Edgar and Gloucester. His purpose for this separation is made evident when he states “Legitimate Edgar I must have your land” (I.2.11). Since he cannot seize the land that has been allocated to Edgar through legitimate means, he does so by planting false evidence, manipulating many the characters within the play, and playing the part of the loyal son.  He states, “let me if not by birth, have lands by wit” and he does exactly that by setting father and son against each other and by convincing others of Edgar’s “villainy” (I.2.162).

Edmund’s schemes to implicate his half-brother in a false conspiracy against Gloucester’s life resemble those of other famous Shakespearian villains, such as Othello’s Iago and Titus Adronicus’ Aaron the Moor and Tamora. He is highly manipulative, easily able to control a situation and guide the thoughts of others in any direction he chooses. This is first made evident when he convinces Gloucester, simply through the use of a fabricated letter, that Edgar was after his life. By decrying the importance of the letter, he goads Gloucester to read it and sets off the chain of events that has Edgar running for his life. He is able to create and enact elaborate schemes, one such being the “sword fight” he has with Edgar, in which he garners sympathy, while solidifying Gloucester’s hatred against Edgar, by intentionally injuring himself. These examples can be compared to Tamora’s efforts to avenge the murder of her son, which she does by falsely implicating Titus’ sons in the murder of the emperor’s brother through the use of a letter as well and by entrapping them at the scene of the murder. Furthermore, his ability to remain the innocent bystander or to be the “hero” can be likened to the role that Iago played in Othello. Despite the fact that Iago blatantly admitted his crimes to those around him, he was trusted by all until the end, when his evil deeds were revealed. Similarly, Edmund gains the trust of not only Gloucester, but of Edgar, Cornwall, and Regan. Despite the fact that Edgar realized that “some villain has done him wrong,” he continues to blindly trust Edmund, a faith that leads to Gloucester casting him off (I.2.144).

Although Edmund is as much a villain of the play as are King Lear’s eldest two daughters, Goneril and Regan,  and he follows the guidelines of the typical Shakespearian Villain, one who is cunning, highly intelligent and influential, and easily able to asses a situation and maneuver it in his favor, his motivations seem to shed a new light on his character. They are not fueled purely by a desire to acquire and retain immense wealth and power, such as Shylock’s were in the Merhcant of Venice, nor does he derive outright pleasure from his heinous deeds, as did Aaron the Moor in Titus Adronicus. Rather, from what has been explored thus far in the first two acts, he has a great desire, even a need to be recognized by his father and by society and to receive the love that has been showered on Edmund throughout his life. This wish for acceptance, for love, a concept not accepted by most of the other villains, somewhat sets him apart from them.

Upon surfing the net I stumbled upon this article and immediately thought of our class, so I thought I’d share it here:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/11/j-crew-plants-seeds-gender-identity/

Responses?

 Act 4 is important because that is when we see shylock’s downfall and the ridiculous offer the court gives him regarding his bond with Antonio.

In act 4 scene 1, the exchange between Portia and Shylock is important because I get the impression that Shylock uses the broken oath as an excuse to revenge. I think it’s not about the money he lost but something much deeper, which is his hate for Antonio, therefore this is his chance to pay him back all the nasty things that Antonio did to him. Portia says to him “Shylock, there’s thrice thy money offered thee” (4.1.224) and he replies “an oath, an oath! I have an oath in heaven. Shall I lay perjury upon my soul? No, not for Venice” (4.1.224-227). This shows that he is only interested in revenge and not the loss of the 3000 Ducats.

In the same act and scene, we also see more evidence that perhaps Antonio is hopelessly in love with Bassanio, which is the cause of his melancholy in the beginning of the play. When he thinks that Shylock is going to kill him, he says to Bassanio “give me your hand, Bassanio, fare you well…commend me to your honorable wife. Tell her the process of Antonio’s end. Say how I loved you, speak me fair in death…bid her be judge whether Bassanio had not once a love” (4.1.261-274). He mentions love again when the disguised Portia asks for Bassanio’s ring. He says “let his deserving and my love withal be valued against your wife’s commandment” (4.1.446-447). 

Going back to Shylock, it is ridiculous when Portia tells him “take thou pound of flesh. But in the cutting it, if thou dost shed one drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods are by the laws of Venice confiscate unto the state of Venice” (4.1.305-309). It’s obvious that one cannot cut someone’s flesh without making them bleed, therefore limiting Shylock’s revenge to this, puts him in a position that he will lose this battle either way. It represents the unfair treatments Jews were exposed to in a world dominated by Christians.

This act is also where we see more similarities between Shylock and Barabas. After he learns that he cannot avoid shedding Antonio’s blood, he decides to take the offer he was proposed earlier, which is to take three times the money he gave to Antonio, but he learns that it’s too late for that because he has already refused the offer. ‘The Jew shall have all justice…He shall have nothing but the penalty” says Portia (4.1.318-319). “He hath refused it in open court. He shall have merely justice and his bond” (4.1.334-335). This is exactly what happened to Barabas when the government came to confiscate his wealth. When he refused the offer they gave him, he could not change his mind about it.  The Jews in both stories are manipulated when it comes to their wealth and are asked to give up their religion. Poor Shylock converts, while Barabas does not, because he has better vengeance tactics, unlike Shylock who easily gives up to Antonio’s desires.

Finally, I believe that Shylock’s punishment is too harsh because after all, Antonio and Bassanio started this mess. He was minding his business until they came to him, borrowed his money, failed to pay him back on time and now ruin his life. He lost all of his money and converts to Christianity, which is probably the worst thing that could happen to him.

I don’t find act 5 to be important because it just a happy ending for all of them except Shylock. To me it’s an entertaining act but it has so significance.   

Below is a clip of act 4. I found it interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSUuczZcUaU

Due to the circumstances of this post, which overlaps with Elaina’s post, I hope to avoid a competition for the focus of our many blog readers by continuing the conversation where Elaina left off rather than spurn a new topic. The question posed by Elaina, “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” (Montague), is philosophically relevant to, and arguably the crux, of our discussion of Race and Religion, specifically the latter

It is critical that we establish the source of conflict between Antonio and Shylock if we are to discuss the conflict’s relevance to the grander scheme of religion. It is too easy a task to reduce Shylock to a heartless, by the book, money oriented character bent on fulfilling articles stated on a slip of paper, and Antonio to the scapegoat of his discontent. However, it becomes evident from their first interaction that money serves as only a conduit through which a much deeper conflict of philosophy flows.

Shylock’s first statement about Antonio i.e., as a person not a source of credit, “I hate him for he is a Christian, / but more for that in low simplicity / He lends out money gratis and brings down / the rate of usance here with us in Venice” (1.3, 40-42), reveals that Shylock’s hatred for Antonio is rooted in the way Antonio conducts business and the effects this conduct has on Shylock’s livelihood. It is a more personal hatred, for a man rather than a hatred for a people viz., Christians. On the other hand, Antonio’s disapproval is more religiously bound, in that it is Shylock’s nature as a Jew to not conduct himself like a good Christian. This source of disapproval from Antonio is diminished, and proven, when Shylock agrees to not charge usury and he states, “The Hebrew will turn Christian: he grows kind,” (1.3, 175). It is for this that Shylock was the subject of Antonio’s abuses, as Shylock puts it,“He hates our scared nation, and he rails, / … on me, my bargains, and my well-won thrift, / which he calls interest” (1.3, 45-49). It is this advocacy of a moral hierarchy by Antonio and Shylock’s change of policy that creates the tension under which Shylock eventually crumbles.
The bond can thus be interpreted not as sadistic desire, but simply the assurance that Shylock will not get screwed.

However, upon Shylock’s discovery of Antonio’s misfortune, it becomes evident that by being persuaded to follow Christian methods in order to be “kind”, rather than his own about which he is spurned, he reveals the extent to which his treatment as usurer has been demoralizing. “If you prick us, do we not / laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you / wrong us, shall we not revenge (?)” (3.1, 60-63), Shylock says, showing that underneath the label of “userer” is a deeply hurt man who is now defending his pride. As if to say he shouldn’t have needed to abandon his practices to satisfy a Christian value system in order to be considered a person.

It is because of this, in a defiant act against his inhuman treatments he responds to the pleas for and by Antonio, “Tell me not of mercy. //… Thou called’st me dog” (3.3, 1-6) (for my usury) and “since I am a dog, beware my fangs (3.3, 7). It is as if Shylock is saying: if I am do no deserve to be treated like a person simply because of my conduct, than do not expect me to conduct myself humanely.

It is for these reasons I feel compelled to argue that Shakespeare was not painting an anti-Semitic picture of Jews, but was rather offering an explanation for the disposition the Jews were stigmatized for and a more general treatise on the extent to which people will suffer inhumane treatment for unjust cause. The disposition of the Jews was not due to the nature of the Jew, rather it was in response to the Christians treatment of the Jews that made them act the way they did. Shakespeare was therefore commenting on the need for social tolerances among different social groups and that no matter what rationale is proposed to justify the rejection of a person, the rejected will eventually rise to defend their human rights.