Act of Usury
Comments(4) My response to the play, The Merchant of Venice, would be the theme of relation of bonding from one human being to another. The play depicts various kinds of relations, friend to friend, creditor and debtor, father and daughter, and Judaism and Christianity.
Through the Act 1, a strong tie is suggested between Antonio and Bassanio. They seem to be more than just friends. Bassanio already had debt from Antonio, so it would be difficult to ask his friend for another loan. However, he generously offers more funds to his friend in order to make his proposal for Portia. Even though Bossanio reveals hesitation on Antonio’s involvement on this agreement that will take a pound of his flesh when he defaults, he willingly agrees and remains confident. Therefore, Bassanio is able to prepare a favorable impression and his journey to Belmont.
How does Bassanio’s friendship with Antonio complicate his relationship with Portia? Is Bassanio mainly after Portia’s wealth or is there a genuine love between Bassanio and Portia?
There is another scene that describes a social tie between Antonio and Shylock. Their relationship is introduced as opponents for lending and their religious beliefs. Shylock addresses these issues in his prose speeches however his behavior remains to be inconsistent due to his resentment towards Antonio. On the other hand, his attitudes changes when he decided to make another offer with a zero interest loan. Shylock makes another consideration and has a change of heart as found through this prose speech: “The Hebrew will turn Christian, he grows kind.” (1.3.177). Shakespeare would describe his critique of controversial issues in the sixteen century through these personae’s awareness of dignity, despair and humanity.
It’s interesting that Portia wants to marry Bassanio when her suitors make up the highest of the high, and not only from her country, but also that of North Africa. I don’t get the feeling that Bassanio’s affection for Portia is purely for financial gain.
Shylock’s issue with Bassanio is less to do with his religious beliefs and more to do with his business practices. By offering loans without interest, Bassanio is undermining Shylock’s business, he “brings down/the rate of usance.” Also, Shylock offers to give the loan to Antonio because it is his opportunity to get Bassanio at a disadvantage. Bassanio is breaking his practice of not borrowing by being a guarantor for Antonio. It would only be in Shylock’s favor to loan the money since they all know Bassanio’s ships are still at sea, and there is a possibility that they will not return in time, thereby putting Bassanio in a position of having to repay the loan with a pound of his flesh. Shylock’s desire seems more for him to gain his pride back vs. impoverish Bassanio.
Then again, I could be wrong… he is an outsider. A Jew living in a Christian country…
“My purse, my person, my extremest
Lie all unlocked to your occasions”
Risk taking or all-out among friends is simply an endeavor that reminded me utterly of when I was in China 20 years ago, though 20 years might not be enough to compare it with the moments of Shakespearean time. Though now everybody, all the books I read, all the classmates’ discussions, perhaps even all the logic and reasons point to that very direction of this is homosexual tendency occurred in the Shakespean play – Merchant of Venice, especially with its character Antonio and his dealing among his friends, makes me wonder should I attempt to augue for the bard?
I thought this explanation of friendship or accusation of Merchant of Venice’s homosexual leaning, is utterly utterly short sighted, and far fetched. Maybe there is a tint of homo-social to it, though ambiguous as it may be, I foresee there is quite a bit more of arguments you have to bring up in order to establish your ground.
How so, when friendships are built upon the idea of equal exchange? It makes sense for Antonio who wants to help his friend all he could, in return he and maybe Bassanio too would expect in return the favor as a friend when they are in the position to help; you give more, you get more. Further along in this path, Antonio might be the only true risk taker, entrepreneur at the time when there is no any technology that can be able to assist. Do you know how hard is to be entrepreneur with several ships on the verge of unknown?
For me, China experience makes sense especially in a town with big shipping industry. Personally know some nicest, hardest working, and most creative risk takers. Antonio too knew he can only be creative to pave a path to succeed when he know all the odds are against him. He knew he cannot be a sheep – just to follow others maybe to pray – will lead to disastrous end, the only people to rely on is friends.
And it’s true that no Shakespeare plays can fully be understood with the change of constraint of time. To translate his play with a different context, you have to deal with biggest and most fundermental change; in another word, myth grows with time ¬– it certainly is not for faint hearted.
Though on the hindsight, I cannot marvel at William Shakespeare’s deliberate attempt in not to waste excessive effort on reader’s part, and concentrate on his central plot. Seems all comes together at the end.
Of course my augment arose solely based on the mistreatment of the Shakespearean play and William Shakespeare.
I’d like to revisit the question posed in the original post—especially after reading Acts III & IV:
“How does Bassanio’s friendship with Antonio complicate his relationship with Portia? Is Bassanio mainly after Portia’s wealth or is there a genuine love between Bassanio and Portia?”
In addition to an amusing use of wordplay, Shakespeare presents his audience and readers with problematized depictions of various “bonds”…perhaps the most disconcerting one is he love triangle (of sorts) between Bassanio/Portia/Antonio. In Act III, Scene ii, Portia says to Bassanio, “They have o’erlooked me and divided me; One half of me is yours, the other half yours—Mine own I would say; but if mine then yours, and so all yours!” (52)…this sentiment is reiterated by Portia when she states: “Myself, and what is mine, to you and yours/Is now converted. But now I was the lord/Of this fair mansion, master of my servants, Queen o’er myself; and even now, but now, This house, these servants, and this same myself/Are yours, my lord’s” (III.ii.166-171). This halving of humans and their possessions into discrete entities which are easily disposable is re-presented when Portia—dressed in drag as a young, prominent male doctor—halves up Shylock’s estate to go to Antonio and to the state of Venice. But that is a digression that perhaps can be discussed in class (I find it especially interesting how a well-to-do lady with no agency is able to invert that (double) standard by becoming the influential intermediary in the climactic court scene).
I bring up Portia’s speech to Bassanio because her personhood and subjectivity are obliterated when she is given over to a husband by a dead patriarch in the grave…and all because he [Bassanio] is able to beat his 1 in 3 odds and claim his trophy wife. It is no surprise Shakespeare utilizes a mercantilist rhetoric to draw comparison between trade and marriage. Before marrying for love took hold, marriages were seen more as contractual arrangements with underpinnings of economic gains. Perhaps this is why Bassanio maintains a distance at revealing sweet nothings about Portia; his view of her is best stated by Gratiano: “We are the Jasons, we have won the Fleece” (III.ii. 241).
On the other hand, when Antonio’s fortune/Fortune—literally and figuratively—takes a turn for the worse, Bassanio wastes no time to come to his aid. What I find troubling is the treatment of the ring given to Bassanio by Portia. After receiving the ring as a token of the “sanctity of marriage,” Bassanio immediately declares, “But when this ring/Parts from this finger, then parts life from hence! O then be bold to say Bassanio’s dead!” (III.ii.183-185). That’s all fine and dandy…until Bassanio pulls a 180 on us and says to Antonio, “…I am married to a wife/Which is as dear to me as life itself; 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.281-285). It’s funny how Nai Hong made a comment about how the probable homo-sexual/-social/-erotic current may be a “far-fetched” reading, but, Bassanio’s language is not too far from the declaration-of-friendship-likened-to-marital-love seen earlier between Helena and Hermia in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Bassanio’s marital love to Portia is put on the balance against his friendship with Antonio: “My lord Bassanio, let him [Portia in drag] have the ring. Let his deservings, and my love withal, Be valued ‘gainst our wife’s commandement” (IV,ii, 448-450). Now, you mean to tell me that it’s okay for a newlywed man who just won the jackpot (so to speak) to put his friendship with another man over that? We have to remember that it is Antonio’s rationale which convinces Bassanio to give up the ring…I’ve written too much as it is…to be continued…:)
I have to add a few points to add if I may, sorry for the post before i finish my reading
My argument is validated and played out in 3.4, when Portia helps a friend in need, which is Antonio
And just like the Casket Game Portia and her suitors were playing, if readers let their own imagination go without bound, it certainly will not stand up to the scrutiny. I say seems faults lies solely on readers’ interpretation not according to script, but to their own imagination