About
This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.
“The Spanish Tragedy” reminds me of “Hamlet” with the ghost and theme of war and revenge. It is interesting to note that there is a considerable amount of Greek Mythology in the play where Andrea faces the three judges and is then transferred to Pluto where his wife takes over as judge.
What goes around comes around. I found it pretty funny where Villuppo tries to frame Alexandro for shooting Balthazar in the back. But things turn around and Villuppo gets killed for lying.
The argument between Horatio and Lorenzo was pretty interesting. Even though they are on the same side, they are fighting on who should get credit for the capture of Balthazar. It’s no surprise that Hieronimo, father of Horatio, takes Horatio’s side. After all, he is family.
The masque with the three knights and three kings seem pretty symbolic. It might be wise to hold on that thought later. For some reason, that scene sticks out in my head.
The play keeps me in anticipation. The spirit of revenge keeps telling Andrea that he will see Balthazar killed but he does not see this. It seems Balthazar is doing pretty well. Things might be going well for him now and I cannot wait to see his downfall.
Take notice of how love can drive people crazy. Love is usually associated with peace and care but we see the totally opposite. Again, it is so similar to “Hamlet.” Look at one of the characters. His name is Horatio. There’s a character by that name in “Hamlet.”
It’s also along the lines of “Othello.” I saw a film based on Othello. It was with that guy from “8 mile”. The film somewhat reminds me of the play with the betrayal and sad love stories.
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.