Alyssa Roca, Merchant of Venice Scenes 3 & 4
Comments(3) While reading the two acts, the character that caught my attention the most was Shylock. With the news that Antonio’s cargo is lost, it is joy to Shylock’s ears knowing he will be receiving Antonio’s flesh. When asked why, or if he can forfeit the bond, he explains that both Jews and Christians are the same biologically, but are not treated the same in society. Verbatim, “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hans, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons subject to the same diseases,…” At this point, I couldn’t help but feel sympathetic for him because it is of course inhumane to treat another human being differently for their religious views. However, it is only after Shylock deviously insists that he will attain his bond that I begin to lose sympathy. When Antonio is detained, Shylock feels nothing but accomplishment, and that justice will be served. Initially, I believed that Shakespeare’s intent was to show the audience the scrutiny one may face due to opposing religious views. However, Shylock’s deep-rooted hatred for Antonio, and Christians alike, is exposed when he denies any money in return, and proves that it is more than just the repercussions of scrutiny that causes his distaste for rational negotiation. Therefore, it is clear to the reader that Shylock will be happy with nothing short of bloodshed. What type of human being desires spilled blood? A hate so strong proves that it cannot be the mere difference in religious views that would instill this–it is his sick, naked cruel characteristics that make him this way. Therefore, I believe Shakespeare’s intent of having the audience, at first, sympathize with Shylock, to soon see his true motives revealed as a way of showing that although religion may be an essential part of our existence, it can not merely define our character. Shylock’s intent to enact revenge on all Christians through Antonio is nothing other than his ill tempered, and irrational mentality. To have sympathy for someone who is ridiculed based on his immoral practices does not deem appealing.
I believe that you are being too harsh on Shylock. Sure, he takes his bond agreement with Antonio too far, but I do not think he should be faulted for that. Coming from a marginalized position as a Jew, Shylock seems to view the bond agreement as revenge against his oppressors. You ask “What kind of human desires spilled blood?” My answer to that would be: every kind. It is easy to fall into the trap of viewing Shylock’s behavior from a 21st century view of humanism and diplomacy, but that type rationality was not the status quo when the play is set. It is an inherently human urge to want revenge after being wronged. The court scene ridicules the use of Law to enforce violence, by revealing that while the ideal is to eliminate violence, in fact the high achievement of Law is used to sanction the base nature of violence. Antonio’s pomposity and arrogance with the bond arrangement show that he believes himself to be above the law because he does not take it or Shylock serious. Only when Law becomes inconvenient for Antonio does he appear humble (falsely I might add) and pours on the self-sacrificing rhetoric trying to avoid his sentence. I do not understand what you mean by the opposite of cruelty Jews may face. I read that as the cruelty Jews inflict, of which I found no actual occurrence in the play. The threat is there, but if anything all cruelty is directed towards Shylock, especially by Portia in her androgynous state. In the end, I view Shylock as the scapegoat (surprised?) who has his actual fortune stolen by people playing with “lines of credit” and a spoiled Portia.
I think that the role of Shylock was written to terrorize theater goes in the 1600’s. His thirst for Antonio’s blood is nothing short of villainous and greedy. However, when Shylock goes on to explain that both Jews and Christians are the same biologically and revenge stems from the same conditions both in Jews and Christians I believe that he stands by what he says. Throughout the play Shylock has been a “by the rules” character. He strongly believes in following the rules and will not alter a decree. An early example of this in the play is how Shylock refused to eat with Christians. His “by the rules” mentality leads him to seek the pound of flesh from Antonio. Shylock can be seen as a villain in the text because he shows no mercy or grace which where considered as being Christian traits. His thirst for Antonio’s blood only strengthened the view that he was a heartless creature.
There’s no doubt that Shylock was hoping, and praying each and every night that this kind of poor luck would bestow upon Antonio for his deep hatred goes back to the very beginnings of the play. It is a known fact that Antonio and Shylock have been enemies for quite awhile, and not only do they despise each other and their religois views, they also have no respect for one another. Shylock sees an opportunity to get revenge on Antonio for all of the times he humiliated him in public and he sees no better way then to seek out his flesh. Shylock is a misunderstood character who is portrayed as the villain but really is comparable to a kid in school who is repeatedly picked on, develops a complex, and tries to exact revenge, and prove his worth til his dying day. Its sad that Shylock feels so lowly about himself.