“The Jew Within”
Comments(11)
Maybe, The Merchant of Venice, is about Antonio that as the merchant stated in the title. However since the most of play is deal with the question of who is Shylock, we can rightfully say it’s not Antonio, the play belongs to Shylock. Instead of him being a villain – the complexion engulfs him as the play is developed – we can feel something akin to sympathy and relate to him.
Although from the start, the interaction between Antonio and friends, seems somewhat too formal, excess of pretension, maybe Shakespeare wants to use this as a way to illustrate the inefficiency of their environment; and paved the emergence of the character Shylock. Further the readers can even get a sense of his dramatic dignity by his contempt even over money, the very thing that defined him is in the audiences’ eyes. Unlike all the villains in other plays of Shakespeare, in no way Shylock see himself as a villain, other than this rational, and articulate, and consistent Jew. Perhaps Shakespeare wants to use him to portray no less and no more of a human being. Maybe he is disliked, an outcast even before the play begins, vilified and spat upon by Antonio. Unlike many characters in the play namely Portia, Shylock’s actions are relatively open, compared to the narrowness of others. Although the other characters misunderstood his intention for the simple reason that they do not understand him.
In Merchant of Venice, two distinctive worlds can also be felt like many other Shakespearean plays. One world is lead by princess Portia whose suitors in seeking her marriage is the likes of princes of other countries; and the other world, certainly not as rich, but head by a well ado upper class men Antonio. Since money plays a huge role in both words, contrary to the audience’s beliefs and logic, it might be a way for Shakespeare to argue that moneylender is not as bad. Especially nowadays, we should be stunned by Shylock’s far sight in this capitalistic world. For most part, two worlds, Shakespeare artfully, maybe also according to the realities at the time, separate them. However in the deepest sense they do compliment each other – somehow provides an explanation for Shylock – in a most subtle way the prince of Morocco, upon meeting Portia as a suitor, had to explain his physical difference.
Indeed Shylock is misunderstood by his Christian rivals and their culture alike – he is limited only within the framework of finance and law. But his interactions with other characters throw him into this maybe even loveable light. For example, when Shylock was asked to dine with Bassanio and his friends, the reason for decline, as in aside, he says he will not break bread with Chritians, nor will he forgive this character in the play, Antonio. From Christian values to Jewish scripture, Shylock is a well-learned man, a deep thinker; his everyday action easily overturns the description donned on him by others that he is solely motivated by money. In turn we applaud the fact that it’s him exposes many inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Christian characters.
Our view is shaped further by the opinion of those closest to him – maybe even an adorable quality about Shylock is added, or it is just enough to shatter the old presumption about the moneylender. In 2.2, the inner struggle of Lancelot, a servant of Shylock, on whether or not leaving his master, also serves as a way indirectly validates Shylock; in turn, Shylock warns Bassanio, Launcelot’s new master, though Laucelot is kind, he eats and sleeps too much. Jessica, daughter of Shylock, voices no real complaint against her father, though her desire to convert to Christianity however teeters on a young recklessness and a world of selfishness. Further more, Shylock might be one of few characters that provide comedic relief in this so-called comedy. “My daughter! O, my ducats! O, my daughter,” as Shylock cries upon learning the fact that he lost both his daughter and money – these raw comic relief provides a sense of satisfaction to the audience at the time – the moneylender after all a comic villain. Maybe this is Shakespeare’s way of saying Shylock might be the only one that has full range of emotions like a real human being.
So, Who is the Jew?
ANTONIO
I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano;
A stage where every man must play a part,
And mine a sad one.
Me, again, I thought this line is very profound, it from the beginning, excuses role that Shylock, since he is the central figure, played,
Sorry 2 comments dragging from behind, in no way it look good, let me try this again
“The Jew Within”
Maybe, The Merchant of Venice, is about Antonio that as the merchant stated in the title. However since the most of play is deal with the question of who is Shylock, we can rightfully say it’s not Antonio, the play belongs to Shylock. Instead of him being a villain – the complexion engulfs him as the play is developed – we can feel something akin to sympathy and even relate to him.
I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano;
A stage where every man must play a part,
And mine a sad one.
As antonio utters these words, in as early as 1.1 maybe this is the way Shakespeare uses to serve as an excuse and pretext for Shylocks the role he played.
Although from the start, the interaction between Antonio and friends, seems somewhat too formal, excess of pretension, maybe Shakespeare wants to use this as a way to illustrate the inefficiency of their environment; and paved the emergence of the character Shylock. Further the readers can even get a sense of his dramatic dignity by his contempt even over money, the very thing that defined him is in the audiences’ eyes. Unlike all the villains in other plays of Shakespeare, in no way Shylock see himself as a villain, constructs this rational, and articulate, and consistent Jew. Perhaps Shakespeare wants to use him to portray no less and no more of a human being. Maybe he is disliked, an outcast even before the play begins, vilified and spat upon by Antonio. Unlike many characters in the play namely Portia, Shylock’s actions are relatively open, compared to the narrowness of others. Although the other characters misunderstood his intention for the simple reason that they do not understand him.
In Merchant of Venice, two distinctive worlds can also be felt like many other Shakespearean plays. One world is lead by princess Portia whose suitors in seeking her marriage is the likes of princes of other countries; and the other world, certainly not as rich, but head by a well ado upper class men Antonio. Since money plays a huge role in both words, contrary to the audience’s beliefs and logic, it might be a way for Shakespeare to argue that moneylender is not as bad. Especially nowadays, we should be stunned by Shylock’s far sight in this capitalistic world. For most part, two worlds, Shakespeare artfully, maybe also according to the realities at the time, separate them. However in the deepest sense they do compliment each other – somehow provides an explanation for Shylock – in a most subtle way the prince of Morocco, upon meeting Portia as a suitor, had to explain his physical difference.
Indeed Shylock is misunderstood by his Christian rivals and their culture alike – he is limited only within the framework of finance and law. But his interactions with other characters throw him into this maybe even loveable light. For example, when Shylock was asked to dine with Bassanio and his friends, the reason for decline, as in aside, he says he will not break bread with Chritians, nor will he forgive this character in the play, Antonio. From Christian values to Jewish scripture, Shylock is a well-learned man, a deep thinker; his everyday action easily overturns the description donned on him by others that he is solely motivated by money. In turn we applaud the fact that it’s him exposes many inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Christian characters.
Our view is shaped further by the opinion of those closest to him – maybe even an adorable quality about Shylock is added, or it is just enough to shatter the old presumption about the moneylender. In 2.2, the inner struggle of Lancelot, a servant of Shylock, on whether or not leaving his master, also serves as a way indirectly validates Shylock; in turn, Shylock warns Bassanio, Launcelot’s new master, though Laucelot is kind, he eats and sleeps too much. Jessica, daughter of Shylock, voices no real complaint against her father, though her desire to convert to Christianity however teeters on a young recklessness and a world of selfishness. Further more, Shylock might be one of few characters that provide comedic relief in this so-called comedy. “My daughter! O, my ducats! O, my daughter,” as Shylock cries upon learning the fact that he lost both his daughter and money – these raw comic relief provides a sense of satisfaction to the audience at the time – the moneylender after all a comic villain. Maybe this is Shakespeare’s way of saying Shylock might be the only one that has full range of emotions like a real human being.
So, Who is the Jew?
Sorry, 1 more
Besides playing a role of jew, Shylock was much bigger than a Jew
While I disagree with Shylock ever being seen as “loveable,” I do grant him a sense of pity in the play because the poor guy seems as though he’s being jumped all throughout. Nothing Shylock ever does is excused, but Antonio can hock the greatest wad of saliva at Shylock and all is forgiven because he is a Christian. In this play I can’t really say who I felt was the true hero. No one stood on a solid moral ground in this play enough to make you jump to their side. Everyone either had a motive in this play, but Shylock was the only one ostracized and that was because his religion.
Christians were given more room to maneuver strictly because of their numbers versus Shylock who is ostracized being singularly Jewish. It seems like the Christian who are in this play are actually more selfish and self-serving that Shylock ever is. Shakespeare must be questioning their worth in an England that was at whim flipping religions: what good is one (or maybe any?) if all they do is cause divisions?
The discussion has already run cold i thought, but now this,
I think this little nugget of fact supports that Shakespeare is if i didn’t already say it aloud, Shakespeare’s own physical father is a money lender, an ultimate way to excuse of being Shylock.
I’m mortified anew this morning, completely over taken by complexity of his play, no maybe petrified, could be stupefied
But i ain’t know, it’s up to them
The quote i added on my latter post by Antonio, supports the notion that Shakespeare was well aware the role of each person play in a society, it also serves as excuse for Shylock in latter play, this makes me think Shakespeare should be a very detailed man, and again, devil is in the details
About the quote by Antonio i used in my post, i said it somehow served as a pretext for the Shylock’s action that he later played. Well to be completely truthful, i think “pretext” is the wrong word, even though it did serve a role. I think this is just “heads up” from the part of Shakespeare, so the whole play and Shylock can mesh together that much more seamlessly