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.

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!

Upon reading both The Jew of Malta and The Merchant of Venice something which stood out to me was the employment of proverbs/scripture and when/how they were used by the different characters.  

In the Jew of Malta, (I.II) Barabas expresses his knowledge of the scripture and how Ferneze has deliberately manipulated scripture to justify his actions.

“Bring you scripture to confirm your wrongs? Preach me not out of my possessions. Some Jews are wicked, as all Christians are. But say the tribe that I descended of were all in general cast away for sin, shall I be tried for their transgression? The man that dealeth righteously shall live. ” (I.II)

In this scene Ferneze has claimed Barabas of his estate and all his riches. It is at this point that Barabas begin to makes comments about Christian hypocrisy and provides us with the suggestion that Ferneze is using scripture in support of his actions and as justification. It is also here that Barabas note his race as being a Jew in referring to his “tribe” eluding to the fact that Ferneze is using Barabas’ identity as a Jew as an excuse to take all of his wealth and to treat him as less of a citizen. Barabas then cleverly turns the tables citing a biblical proverb of his own (“The man that dealeth righteously shall live.”).  

Interestingly, when Abigail converts to Christianity Barabas then employs the exact tactic of which he criticized the Ferneze in justifying the murder of his own daughter and referring to the story of Cain and Abel.

 Now, when reading The Merchant of Venice in Act I, Scene III Bassanio is requesting a loan from Shylock, the Jew. Shylock agrees to lend Bassanio the money on Antonio’s credit and then refers to the biblical story of Jacob and Laban (I.III.94-99).  A few lines later Antonio warns Bassanio; “Mark you this, Bassanio, The devil can cite scripture for his purpose. And evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, A goodly apple rotten at the heart. O’ what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

It is in this quotation that I think Shakespeare was saying a lot and sort of speaking to Marlowe’s point of “religion as a childish toy”. Religion and the religious can use God as a sort of weapon to justify the ultimate evils. For those that are truly evil their knowledge of this fact, is power and with it they can push their agenda and manipulate those who aren’t necessarily as clever and evil because after all, they have the ultimate witness backing them up- God. How many wars have been fought in the name of “God”?

There seem to be two basic things that drive Barabas- his love for money and his hate for Christians. He is willing to do almost anything in order to protect his money and show his spite for Christians. When he finds out that Abigail is converting to Catholicism, he instantaneously decides that he’s going to poison her and kill her for deliberately going against his wishes. This was pretty baffling to me. After reading about Jews and Catholics during the time, it become somewhat clearer and a tad bit less baffling as to why Barabas would kill his own daughter because she has converted to a religion he hates the most. Jews and Christians at the time were strictly divided. Christians wanted nothing to do with Jews; to the point that the English ousted all jews from England because they didn’t want them in English society. Jews were also blamed for many terrible deeds, such as killing Christian children, when in fact it was was often that the oppisite occurred- Christians killing Jews.

Barabas abhors Christians so much that prefers Abigail to be dead instead of living as a Catholic. In class last Wednesday, we spoke about Barabas and came to the conclusion that he does not really hate Catholicism as a religion, but rather hates Catholics for being hypocrites. This is now debatable, seeing as how Barabas has decided to kill his own daughter simply because she has become a Catholic. He does not seem to be concerned for whether she is being like the rest of the hypocritical Catholics or not, he simply wants her dead because he knows she did this to spite him. To me, it seems like Barabas has a power struggle. He loves the feeling that power gives him- for this reason he loves money so much- but he also uses this power to manipulate those around him and use them to his advantage.

Notice how he uses his daughter Abigail. In his scheme to take revenge on Ferneze for taking all of his money, he devises a plot to have Ferneze’s son Ludowick be killed by Mathias in a duel between them. Barabas knows that Mathias is Abigail’s true love, but she utilizes her in his scheme without any concern for her feelings whatsoever. In his scheme, he never realizes that Mathias might be killed in the duel with Ludowick, nor does he really care when he is killed. He cares more that Abigail has deliberately gone against his wishes than anything else, and he never for a second takes into consideration how his daughter might be feeling about what he has done. Abigail is not really his daughter anymore, she seems to be just another tool for him to use in his plan. He uses lot of people to his convenience- other Jews, and Ithamore. When he buys Ithamore at the slave market, it is clear that he has no concern for the slave. However, when he sees that Abigail has betrayed him, he declares Ithamore his sole heir and friend, so long as he can use Ithamore.

For these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that Barabas is an unkind mind who uses people for his own interests, including his own daughter. What else would you expect from a money hungry man?

Upon reading Act 3 and 4 up to scene 3, I thought it necessary to further discuss the issue of Race as it specifically relates to Aaron, the Moor. After the first two Acts, we encounter the issue of race when Aaron once again arrives at one of the most heart wrenching events in the book, Titus’s discovery of his sons’ unfortunate fates as well as his first glimpse of the violated Lavinia. In Act 3.1 we hear Aaron further his evil plot by telling Titus to cut off one of his own hands to appease the Emperor for his sons supposed crime. Titus says, “Did ever a raven sing like a lark,” 158. Clearly the choice of raven draws attention to the color of Aaron’s skin color. However, it is still hard to say exactly where Aaron stands on these issues. He does not respond to Titus’ comment and instead continues his set up of his incredibly cruel trick and then in line 200, he exclaims how much it pleases him to do this “villainy”. Aaron seems to be motivated purely by his desire to cause evil. He fulfills his archetypical role as the Machiavel extremely well up until this point. But we still do not have a clear idea of what is motivating him.

Later, at the end of act 3 scene 2 lines 76 till the end, invite another more in depth look at racism. This sequence is the fly incident in which we find the clearly insane Titus talking about not killing an innocent fly only to grab the knife and start stabbing it himself when Marcus draws a connection between the “black ill-favored fly” and the “Empress’ Moor.” He gets specific with his prejudice saying that “the Moor come hither purposely to poison me.” line 72. This is a difficult part of the text to understand. For one thing, there is a lot of racial tension here and it is obvious that Titus has an extremely irrational reaction when he stabs the fly simply because it is black like Aaron. However, it has been Aaron and Tamora who have orchestrated the crimes against Titus and his family and therefore it is hard to decide where exactly race fits in. It is clear that at least some of Titus’ anger at Aaron is rational.

We get another idea of where this play stands on race in Act 4 Scene 2 where we witness the debacle with Tamora and Aaron’s child. The scene is filled with the most insulting racial remarks aimed at the innocent mixed race child and at the heart of it Aaron tries to keep control. They say the baby is a shame and that it looks like a toad in lines 68 and on. Interestingly Aaron, instigator of some of the most hateful crimes in the entire story, is suddenly possessed by his child’s image, exclaiming that having his son is a desire greater than any other he has. When he decides to keep the baby, Tamora’s sons eventually agree, although it goes against their mother’s order. We are left wondering why, with so much hate expressed towards his racial character, is Aaron still in charge? They all specifically look to Aaron to formulate the plan and lead them further.

These few snippets of racial tension and hate leave us in a strange place regarding where the play stands on race. Aaron’s dual role as a racial outsider as well as the play’s chief instigator of evil makes him hard to pinpoint. His responses to the racial remarks he hears are few and seem unrealistic. At the same time, it would be hard to say that he does not feel these insults hurting him, especially when it is directed at him and his new born child. We have to wonder why we do not delve deeper into his psyche. We are left wondering why the main planner of the most horrendous crimes is black and therefore immediately different from the rest of the characters.

It seems to me that Aaron’s portrayal is quite racist and at best, only shows a white/European idea of what black men are like. Perhaps this will change once we finish the play.

This drawing by Henry Peacham (pictured in your Oxford World Classics edition of the play) dates from about 1595. Think about the costuming choices and, in light of our discussion of race, the ways in which difference is being marked on the bodies of the performers.

On Tuesday we briefly discussed religion both during the time of “The Spanish Tragedy,” as well historically in Europe. It stood out to me then that Kyd would decide to use Classical Paganism throughout the story. When Don Andrea dies he does not go to Heave, Hell, or even Purgatory for that matter, but instead we find him among the River Styx, Charon, Pluto, and the underworld Hades. Why though? Why choose Classical Greek Mythology as the “be all, end all” for the afterlife?

The first thing that comes to mind is Homer’s epic “The Odyssey,” but religion-wise, the entire story is Greek Mythology with no trace of Christianity whatsoever. Then again, we also have “Paradise Lost,” by John Milton, who in a way rewrites the story of original sin, but before starting his poem, calls upon the muses to inspire him, much like a writer would usually do if he/she were writing an epic. Now does this mean that “The Spanish Tragedy” was Thomas Kyd’s attempt at an epic? I think it is quite possible.

Considering how long and winded these dialogued lines were, I could see no way that the actors could have possibly memorized them word for word, but instead they must have had to memorize parts of the lines, but not word for word; very similar to “The Odyssey,” were the lines weren’t written, but rather passed down through oral tradition. In addition, these three epics (which is what I am going to call “The Odyssey,” “Paradise Lost,” and “The Spanish Tragedy”) all revolve around revenge. In “The Odyssey,” Odysseus finally makes it back home, but then has to kill the suitors who are trying to marry his wife and take over his estate, in “Paradise Lost,” Satan is banished from Heaven, but spends the rest of “Paradise Lost” plotting his revenge, and in “The Spanish Tragedy,” we have Ieronimo trying to get revenge for the murder of his son Horatio.

This idea of revenge is also something that puzzled me, more directly when it came to religion. I question whether Kyd chose to have this Greek mythology as a backdrop for “The Spanish Tragedy” so that the characters can have their revenge. Remember that in Christianity there is a pretty steep price for killing someone (4^th Commandment I believe) so how could the characters get their revenge and still live peacefully in the afterlife if not for the Greek mythology. Consider the ending where Don Andrea begins to list where each person was going to go in the afterlife, Ieronimo to the Elysian Fields with Orpheus, Bel-Imperia with the Vestal Virgins, Lorenzo on Ixion’s wheel, etc…It would seem that it was necessary to include Greek mythology to not only make the revenge possible, but also one where the bad guys will continue to suffer for all eternity, while the good guys spent their afterlife with heroes.

I don’t know guys, what do you all think?

“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.

There are a few clips on YouTube from the 1995 production of Twelfth Night, directed by Trevor Nunn. Take a look at Olivia and Viola/Cesario’s exchanges in Act One, Scene Five and Act Three, Scene One. Malvolio “cross-gartered” can be seen here, beginning at about the 8:20 minute mark.

Something we discussed briefly in class, but I think deserves more attention is the issue of homosexual relationships in Shakespeare’s works. After reading Julie Crawford’s essay “The Homoerotics of Shakespeare’s Elizabethan Comedies,” I began to think more about the homosexual relationships or allusions to homosexual relationships that appear in Twelfth Night.

We discussed in class the differences between our 21st century understanding of sexuality and gender identity and that of the Renaissance period. My interest in the subject of homosexuality in Twelfth Night is not to question whether or not homosexuality caused anxieties among audiences, but rather why male-male relationships seem to be more acceptable, realistic, and even supported than female-female relationships.

If you haven’t read Crawford’s essay yet, it’s very helpful in terms of exploring the seeming double standard about homosexuality in Shakespeare’s collective works. In Twelfth Night specifically the relationship between Sebastian and Antonio is highly romanticized. It really seems like the ideal loving relationship. There is of course an underlying notion that the relationship cannot extend much further, but in general, no real criticisms about their involvement appears.

The encounters between Olivia and Viola as Cesario, however, are more complicated. While the audience knows Cesario’s true identity, Olivia remains oblivious to the fact that the “man” she has fallen in love with is really a woman. The confusion has a humorous air about it, but often it seems that the flirtatious exchanges from Cesario’s side are not an act at all. It becomes difficult to determine whether or not Viola might actually be attracted to Olivia.

It really struck me in my reading that not only is the female character Viola targeted as an object of comedy because she is playing the role of a man, but also her relationship with Olivia becomes a joke. I wondered if perhaps the reason for this had something to do with the anxieties about women that were discussed in the reading. Making a woman and her relationships the primary source of humor in the play seems to be reflective of the male desire to break down female power.

All of Olivia’s encounters are somewhat over the top. She is in love with a cross-dressed girl, a lower class and gullible servant is in love with her, and a duke will stop at nothing to court her successfully. The one successful relationship Olivia seems to have is with her servant Maria. Crawford’s essay points out that the idea of servant-master relationships is predominant in expressing homoeroticism in Shakespeare’s work. She even notes the relationship between Maria and Olivia as a strong example of this motif. There is some evidence in this relationship that female-female relationships were not being made entirely laughable, but I do find it interesting that Olivia’s character is defined as so “male” (living on her own, strong-willed, independent). Perhaps this is a way to allow the relationship to exist without fully empowering the female character as a female.

Overall I think that it is incredibly apparent that the idea of male companionship was largely accepted as a necessity, which is perhaps why Sebastian and Antonio can so freely express their affections to the audience. This could perhaps relate to the idea of anxiety since men may have felt they could not rely or depend upon a woman out of fear for her gaining too much power or control. I think the most important thing to consider, though, is that the women do end up “properly” with a male companion in the end, which says a lot about the expectations of the period.