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?

Portia the Heroine?

Wealthy, beautiful, intelligent

In the beginning of the play she is portrayed as a powerless,  female character who must abide by her father’s final wish, even  though she has all the qualities of an independent  woman and even orchestrates Bassanio to choose the right casket.

So now that she is married the question is  did she help Antonio because of her love for Bassanio?  Some people find that hard to believe since they barely  knew each other before  they  wed, and because much time hasn’t passed.

So if she didn’t  love him then why did she help?  She may have just been doing what a partner is  supposed  to do, stand by your spouse.  That is the simplest explanation.  Bassanio loves Antonio, therefore, she loves Antonio.

As  courageous as this act is, she cannot do it as herself.  She cannot exercise her brilliance as a woman so she must do it as a man.  Not only does she outsmart everyone, she is also able to manipulate her husband into giving up his precious ring.  Why?    If she is not really in love at this point, why would it matter?  What does bother me are the hypocritical antics she uses to beat Shylock out of the contract.  I firmly believe there is no way she thinks what she is doing is right,  she is just  finding  her way out of a difficult  situation.  Does that make her a heroine?  I guess so.

Aaron and Shylock: Shakespeare’s “Others”

Aaron the Moor and Shylock the Merhcant are the primary antagonists in Titus Andronicus and the Merchant of Venice, respectively. They are bequeathed the status of “other” by the characters of the plays due to their faith, dress, character, and nature. Aaron and Shylock find themselves in similar situations in the plays, as people to be scorned.

One of the first apparent similarities between the two characters are the terms that are used to address them. Aaron is referred to as a Moor and Shylock as the Jew throughout the two plays. The titles that they are conferred constantly serve as a reminder that the two characters are “alien” to the society in which they live. It also affirms their belief that they would never be accepted by society.

Aaron’s is separated from the other characters in Titus Andronicus because of his dark skin. The blackness of his skin represents his barbaric nature. He is an uncivilized, “irreligious moor.” He is ridiculed because of his non-Roman status and hated because of the blackness of his soul, illustrated through the color of his skin. He is not even seen as a person, being referred to as only the Moor throughout the play. This is evident in the fourth act of the play, when, after the birth of his son, the nurse refers to the baby as “a devil.” Voicing the sentiments of all of the characters in the play as well as the Shakespearian audience that watched the play. Aaron is vastly different from the Romans and Goths that dominate the play and their contempt of his physical appearances, his nature, his very being feul a mind that has been twisted by

Unlike Titus Andronicus, where the discriminating factor is color, in the Merchant of Venice, it is Shylock’s religion and subsequently his profession that sets him apart as the “other.” Shylock is a Jew, living among Christians. Moreover, he is a money lender, who lends money to the people of Venice with the intent to profit. Shylock is also seen as irreligious, since as a Jew, his soul is not believed to be redeemable and his line of work, which serves to only enrich him at the expense of others emphasizes the greed that blackens his soul.

The two hold themselves above society, superior to its laws. Aaron, constnantly reminds the audience that he believes the Romans to be idiotic and does not hold himself accountable to Roman law or society. Aaron declares “Let fools do good, and fair men call for grace/Aaron will have his soul black like his face” (3.1.4). He embraces his blackness, by admitting that his very soul is colored by the skin on his face. He further declares that he would choose the blackness of his skin and soul, over the foolishness of the Romans because righteous fools accomplish nothing. Shylock also shows disdain for the Venetian way of life. He is disgusted by their extravagence and their biases against his people. He believes them to by hypocrites, who abandon their morals with careless regard. This is evident during his confrontation with Antonio in Act 1, where he questions Antonio’s decision to borrow money, when, in the past, Antonio has made it clear that he does not borrow nor lend money, as a true Christian would do.

Yet the motivating factors that influence both characters to carry out their schemes of vengeance vary. Aaron’s main concern is to preserve his identity as the “other.” He takes pride in his blackness and seems to enjoy his acts of violence, most of which are motiveless and performed out of pure malice. In Act 5 when he has been captured and forced to confess, he gives a list of all of the “henious deeds” he has committed. He says:

Few come within the compass of my curse,–
Wherein I did not some notorious ill,
As kill a man, or else devise his death,
Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it,
Accuse some innocent and forswear myself,
Set deadly enmity between two friends,
Make poor men’s cattle break their necks;
Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
And bid the owners quench them with their tears.

Even at the verge of death, Aaron’s only regret is that he could not commit “ten thousand more” evil deeds. His confession shows that Aaron’s motives for comitting such atrocities were largely influenced by his immoral and darkened soul, rather than from any logical motive to seek justice or revenge.

Whereas Aaron’s main concern is the preservation of his race, Shylock exacts his revenge out of a twisted sense of humanity. Shylock believes that he his rights as a human being have been wronged. He states:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

As a person he too feels anger and pain. He is also hurt by the disdain of others, just as a Christian person would be. He views his treatment as a wrong against his humanity and thus believes that revenge, a very human trait, is the proper avenue through which he can seek justice.

Although Shylock and Aaron have similar characteristics and choose to resort to violence to accomplish their goals, they differ in their outlook on their identity and their ideals. At the end, Aaron holds onto his identity as a Moor. When Lucius threatens to kill his son, Aaron pleads with him to let him live and in return promises to tell Lucius the truth. Aaron cannot see his heir, the child that will carry on his identity, die, because with his son’s death, Aaron himself will come to an end. Shylock on the other hand chooses to give into his Christian counterparts. He converts to Christianity in order to protect himself from execution and to retain a portion of his wealth.

A counterfeit is a representation, a theme liberally exploited by Shakespeare’s hand in his play, “The Merchant of Venice.”

The word, as represented, in part, in the “Oxford English Dictionary”, describes matters forged, or wrought after a pattern, made in imitation of the genuine, transformed in appearance, feigned, and disguised, and even a deformed or misshapen person. Thus is implied some inevitability of distortion when the inceptions of ideas and intentions become manifest.

Most notably played is the tension between justice and the law upon which Shylock’s narrative dwells. His letter-of-the law, strict interpretation of Antonio’s indenture is drawn in contrast to the other characters’ insistence that his version is remote from the original intent of justice. “I stand here for law,”(IV. i. 142), he insists, to which Antonio affirms, that taken in this fixed context, “no lawful means can carry me / Out of his envy’s reach…”(IV. 1. 9). Shylock insists that he is beyond judgment if he were to kill Antonio, for he will have done no wrong in enforcing the legal terms of his bond. He is immune to Portia’s plea that true justice includes an element of mercy, which is above the “temporal power” of man’s law, and “is an attribute to God himself”(IV. i. 194). In the end, his insistence upon the virtue of his interpretation proves his undoing, when Portia aligns her reasoning with his, and resorts to what “The words expressly are,” and reconciles law and justice, when she allows, “For, as thou urgest justice be assured / Thou shalt have justice more than thou desir’st”(IV. i. 314).

Shakespeare is not vague in portraying the habits of incongruous understandings. Of my favorite lines in the play, most can be found in Bassanio’s long grievance of deceptive appearances in Act III scene ii:

“In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt,
But being seasoned with a gracious voice,
Obscures the show of evil? In religion,
What damned error but some sober brow
Will bless it, and approve it with a text,”

The word counterfeit is used in the text only once, when Bassanio looks upon the likeness of Portia in the portrait that confirms his claim to her love and wealth. He invokes the creative abilities of a demigod, a near-perfection, yet somehow still a distortion of the original object of his affections. Apart from a mundane reading, that the portrait pales in comparison to Portia in the flesh, this passage in particular lends itself to a homo-social (if not homo-erotic reading in which the original object of his affection may not be Portia after all, but his friend Antonio. His words conjure a seduction and deception of sorts, as though even the woman standing near him is not the substance of his prize, but a separation from it; “Here are severed lips / Parted with sugar breath; So sweet a bar / Should sunder such sweet friends”(III. ii. 120). He continues to infuse the likeness with conceits of capture, comparing the image’s hair to a spider’s web, constructed to “entrap the hearts of men.” A reading that Portia the woman, is relegated to the realm of imitation (might she be the aforementioned deformed or mishappen person?), might be supported when Bassanio wonders how the so-called demigod painter can ever have been distracted from the original beautiful eye; “Methinks it should have power to steal both of his / And leave itself unfurnished [ie. not provided with its mate?]”(iii. ii. 125) Eve being given form by virtue of Adam’s rib might not be such a stretch in this context. Further muddying the interpretive waters is his remark that, “The substance of my praise doth wrong this shadow”(III. ii. 127).

In the spirit of disguise, one cannot fail to appreciate that Portia, confined as she is by the customs of her times, must generally express her agency and her intelligence freely only when she is portrayed as a man. When she appears in the garb of a Doctor of Laws in the court, the incongruity of her wisdom and her youth is readily overlooked, while her gender would make such a suspension of disbelief impossible. The device of her transformed appearance ironically reverses the usual direction of the distortion, as in this case, the wisdom that must be dumbed down is of an earthly, rather than heavenly source.

No doubt Shakespeare saw the dangers of, and the good fun in, the fluid and transient potentials of meaning, as he playfully warns via Bassanio, “There is no vice so simple but assumes / some mark of virtue on his outward parts”(III. ii. 81) He reminds us that things are rarely what they first appear, and perhaps that definitions devoid of distortion, will ultimately remain elusive.

Gratiano: “All things that are / Are with more spirit chased than enjoyed.”  (II. vi. 12)

– Claire

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.

All the violence, all the blood, instead of at the heat of moment in the Shakespearean play, Titus Andronicus, Aaron might be the only one can be able to see the underlying truth of this struggle that himself was very much a part of it.  A deeper truth that not only speaks to the audience at his time, at the very end of the play, a line, “vengeance rot you all,” in my mind this tells me William Shakespeare is fully aware of the whole scope.

All the blood and pain started to pour out as early as Act 2, when Lavinia was badly mutilated and raped.  The crimes committed on stage was intensified to a shocking degree by having Tomora’s sons slaughtered and baked into meat pies.   And masterfully Shakespeare was able to craft, maybe even mingle the audience rage and hate toward one focal point, which is that of his audience at the time, achieve the theatrical success and mastery as a playwright.

The whole play is simply too gruesome, many critics argue.  But if you read with the prism of Elizabethan time, you might think this is what the audience at that time want.  And beneath the audience’s hunger of instant sensation, Shakespeare seem are speaking to us even louder—revenge or violence, once you started, it can never be stopped.

One might read through this Shakespeare play and think that the line that best describes it is “[T]he course of true love never did run smooth” (I.i.134), or perhaps a cliche such as love (cupid) is blind, or perhaps simply that this is a bad romance comedy.  Unfortunately, the author ruined these thoughts extremely early in the play.  It was a small and simple section, but the interpretation for it was a bit troubling (in my own context of course, I’m sure this was the norm at the time).  The line is this: “Hippolyta, I wooed thee with my sword,/And won thy love, doing thee injuries” (I.i.16).  Yes, of course it can just be taken as Theseus explaining to the audience the start of the play, but I took it as this: a phallic symbol and a display of power.

This might be a bit of a stretch to some, but it’s hard for me to gloss over the fact that in literature, many extensions of power or agency come in the form of a phallic symbol, be it a sword or dagger, gun, pen, etc.  It is not even a symbol found solely in one work of Shakespeare.  Titus Andronicus had numerous references or symbols to the phallus, whether it be the sword which kills or the staff which tells.  Also telling from Titus is the fact that those who did exercise any notion of agency did so with the help of a sword, or staff (the only point in which Lavinia seemed to have any kind of power was when she held a staff).  But let’s get back to the play at hand.

Theseus woo’d his fiance with a sword.  Hermia and Helena, both “swordless”, do not express agency in that they are not the evokers of their own plot.  Titania tries to exercise some power over the fate of the Indian prince, but instead loves an ass.  I am going to say that Shakespeare is using gender power relations, but I will leave it to the reader as to how it’s interpreted.  I’m only going to say that women’s suffrage was not established in England until 1832.

The other aspect of this play that I found surprising (as if phallus were surprising in any literary form), is the use of magic, forestry, and the fantastic.  That is not to say that these themes were never used before or after, but in this play, it was normal.  I stress that fact because the more you think about it, the more unique this idea becomes.  Yes, mysticism, mythos, and madness were all used before, notably in greek theatre, but I find it to be strange that there are fairies, love potions, and it’s all the same to the mortals.  Compare that to say, Frankenstein, when one object outside of the norm perpetuates the entire story.  In my experience, it isn’t until postmodernism where you really see the surreal and strange and think nothing of it.

Of course, most of this splendor happens in a forest, and having magic (but also love) happen away from civilization has it’s own implications, and I guess that is a testament to the surviving power of Shakespeare.  A Midsummer Night’s Dream gave me three readings:  a postmodern reading, a romantic reading, and a phallic (gender) reading.

Note: Antony and Cleopatra’s phallic symbol of the snake is also a symbol of ouroboros, an strong feminine symbol.

During Shakespeare’s lifetime, England experienced war, outbreaks of plague, terrorist attacks, unprecedented prosperity and the growth of conspicuous consumption, religious conflict, and—for the very first time—contact with the New World. These events vitally shaped Shakespeare’s plays. Reading a selection of his comedies, histories, tragedies, and tragicomedies, we will consider these works within their historical and theatrical contexts. Who went to which playhouses, and why? What did the stages look like? What sort of sound-effects did they use? We will also ask questions about Shakespeare’s continued cultural relevance, focusing on the topics of globalization, sex and gender, and race. Readings will be supplemented with film.