The play is troubling and even disturbing. On
one level, it's a comedy of love, with the ups and downs of courtship, a theme
excluded from the casket story and taken up again at the end when the affair of
the rings allows the wooing to start afresh. On another level, it's full of
deep hatred, with Shylock's grisly demand of repayment in the form of a pound
of flesh, and a play that asks searching questions about the value of things,
with Portia at the centre of a plot about a grubby battle for money and life. Oddly,
Antonio (a merchant in Venice) has a very small role, given the title of the
play. Portia has by far the largest part. It's certainly a play that speaks to
the contemporary world and seems very modern in its concerns about religious
intolerance and conflict, as well as money, commercial exchange/trade, and
conspicuous consumption. It’s a rather disturbing play. The lack of humanity
with which Shylock treats Antonio, and the corresponding lack of humanity with
which he is then treated by the Venetian establishment, seem to me to be
evidence of a deeply fractured society. It is a difficult play to warm to but
it falls into place when you realise you don't have to like Portia just because
she is the notional heroine. She is clever and eloquent but she has a cruel
streak-look at the way she puts the boot into Shylock (going far beyond her
original brief which was to save Antonio) and torments her husband about the
ring before the marriage has even been consummated. But to be fair, he is a
shameless fortune hunter. I don't think their marital bliss will last very
long.
I always liked the "The quality of Mercy is not strain'd" dialogue by Portia in
the court scene. It suggests that the only way to confront racism or jealousy
is to be merciful, the act of mercy can have bigger effect than violence.
Mercy is indeed the best way to disarm bigotry
of any kind. Today we feel more sympathy with Shylock, but he was as
religiously bigoted as the Christians around him (perhaps with greater cause
though) and he mourned the loss of his gold as much as of his daughter. In
Shakespeare's day, they might have thought that the court was doing him a
favour by making him convert to Christianity. His daughter had already
converted willingly for love.
Re-reading over the play now, I realised that
there is a deeper conversation going on in it about the Old and New Testaments.
The Old Testament says that one is subject only to the Law and that the
slightest deviation from the Law will lead to your loss of your inheritance in
God's Kingdom - Shylock represents the Old Testament. In the New Testament,
God's justice (which would condemn us all) is tempered by mercy, by which we
are saved, though we be undeserving, and by which we then inherit everything.
Portia represents God's mercy - available to all - and she repeatedly asks
Shylock about his position. By his answers he insists on being judged by the
law and eschews mercy. Hence all he has is forfeit.
I loved Act 1 scene 2, where loved Portia's
summing up of her suitors. This is Shakespeare describing national stereotypes
that still hold up today! Definitely a bit of light relief before the
introduction of Shylock whose first three words introduce his obsession with
money: “Three thousand ducats.” I
think it would work in a modern reading if we substituted 'jew' with 'banker'!
I rather like the idea of, 'and you spit
on my banker's gaberdine'. Sorry if there are any investment bankers
reading this review...
Some marvelous speeches, and complex issues to
be considered. As I was reading it, I kept thinking of the negativity of hatred
which stems from Antonio's previous attitude to Shylock and Shylock's
resentment of this treatment. During his life it would have been unlikely that
anybody would have had any mercy with him. Own property? No. Be part of the
community? No. Now, this one chance, for him, for the other Jews in Venice, his
one chance of justice or fairness. Gone. Poof. In the blink of an eye. And even
worse: All his life, his beliefs, he as a person with his rituals and
everything: Gone. They might as well have killed him.
This play is a satisfying one as it resolves so
neatly. It all seems to turn on Antonio - the title character, the Merchant of
Venice (really?) - Portia, and the lead casket. Antonio, an older, unmarried
man, loves Bassanio dearly. In fact he is the only character in the play who
can comply with the inscription "Who chooses me must give and hazard all
he hath". For Bassanio's sake, Antonio is prepared to sacrifice all his
money and his life too. Antonio is no saint, but his unlikable traits only
serve to make him all the more human and his sacrifice the greater. Bassanio, unwittingly, picks the right
casket, but only because he has rejected the other two. In doing so, he releases
Portia from the dead hand of her father so that she can go and rescue Antonio
by using equity, a tempered and enlightened form of legal process associated
with mercy. Shylock cannot show mercy and therefore has only basic law to fall
back on. Finally, as everyone has held steadfast and true in love, even
Antonio's missing ships come home to harbour. The only one left out is Shylock
who could not show mercy, the sign of love. How can this happy-ending play not
be a comedy?
After having seen the BBC version with Jeremy
Irons and in the first scene, the play says Bassanio is a noble kinsman of
Antonio. Gratiano also says he loves Antonio, so I don't think there is a
homosexual relationship implied on the part of the younger men, but certainly
Jeremy Irons as Antonio seems to indicate there is some homo-erotic desire on
his part, but it’s maybe seen as a version of 'agape' Greek love between an
older man and a younger one. There seems to be a long standing enmity between
Antonio and Shylock which is more than just that between Jews and Christians. I
think Antonio finally demanding that Shylock converts to Christianity is the
essence of cruelty - to deprive a man of his religion, to make him an outcast
among his own people, particularly the Jewish religion in the city of Venice
with its ghetto, does make me sympathetic towards Shylock. On the other hand, in Pacino’s film,
Antonio is much older than Bassanio, and he looks and behaves more like a father
than a friend .There is no mention of a family and his resolution to put his
wealth in the service of his friend is really touching (Act 1, scene 1). Shylock
bears a grudge to Antonio and Christians in general for ill treatment and
defamation. When reminded of past offense Antonio will persist in his arrogant
and abusing attitude, although he has come to ask for a favour. Had he changed
his approach, who knows, maybe Shylock's hatred of him had been contained and
never given vent to (Act 1 , scene 3). The
prince of Morocco considers Portia a true gem and in his mind no other box than
the golden one is suitable to hide her portrait.. He is a wealthy man, used to
having the best in everything and this very way of life will prevent him from
seeing things beyond appearances (Act 2. scene 7). Shylock's heart is wounded and wisdom is lost
on him now that he has heard about Antonio's bad luck. Revenge dominates his
thoughts and he is all the fiercer in his desires now that his daughter has
eloped and taken with her an important part of his wealth (Act 3, Scene1). I
found this play powerful, shocking and - with reference to Act4 Scene 1 -
horrible! I last encountered it nearly 30 years ago but can only recall the
casket scene.
While I doubt that Shakespeare was completely
above the prejudices of his times, I think his portrayal of Shylock is
sympathetic and moving. Our reactions are shaped by recent history to some
degree, but no doubt Shakespeare would have been aware of events such as the
massacre of the York Jewish community at Clifford's Tower in 1190. I feel his
portrayal was made in the same spirit as Milton's Satan, an enormously sympathetic
figure.
I find the psychological depth of many of
Shakespeare's characters fascinating and never fail to be impressed by the
complexity and breadth of the issues his plays raise. Money, compassion,
"worth", prejudice - all so relevant today.
And “So
shines a good deed in a naughty world.” I read Act IV Scene 1 three times
over and gained more wisdom from it each time. The argument is brilliantly
crafted: first as the Duke attempts to appeal to Shylock's better nature and
then, when that fails, Portia leads him on, arguing cogently and increasing the
pressure line by line, until he's hoisted by his own petard. As the saying
goes, “Be careful what you wish for.”
Reading it out aloud brought home to me the relevance of Grattiano's
interjections, repeated like the chorus a refrain, in mocking imitation of
Shylock's own “O upright judge, O learned
judge,” as a sort of “Well you said
it, Mate!”
We impose our own values and likes and
prejudices on any work of art we interact with. It's inevitable, we can't help
bringing the influence of our time and place. Writer's too are tied by the tide
of opinion of their own times and only the greatest can think beyond these
confines and produce the shock of the new. Modern artists are sensible if they
refuse to discuss their work and remain enigmatic. Bob Dylan had the right
idea, people of my generation were able to imprint our own meaning on his
lyrics and personalize his songs. We live in post Freudian times and are still
influenced by the notion we secretly love our mothers and want to kill our
fathers. That any malady of the mind can be cured by analysis, counselling and
discussion of the failings of our nurturing.. The Psychologists are inventing
new complexes and syndromes every day, well it keeps them all in work, and
perpetuating the idea that any cast of mind is due to the influence some past
event. They will never accept that some things just are.
Re-reading this play in 2016 it also made think
it’d be interesting to know a little more details about Venetian Law at the
time. I find it absurd for the Duke and the others to sit back while Shylock
holds Antonio's life at ransom, all contented that the law was in support of
Shylock in endangering Antonio's life. I think that for every law in every
country and in every era there is inevitably some loophole that had not been
considered when the law was made and which a canny person can exploit for
nefarious purposes - like Shylock - and everyone is bound by the law. It does
seem ridiculous, but everyone works on the principle that if you begin to pick
and choose which bits of the law you will follow at any one time, the entire
legal edifice falls down, to everyone's detriment. The best we can do is review
and amend the law after the event when a loophole has been exploited. One has
only to think about some modern Mormon sects in America who practice polygamy,
claiming freedom of religion, and get the US government to pay maintenance to
finance their wives and children (though they curse the government as evil) and
leave one wall of their house unfinished to avoid paying rates or taxes - and
they still call themselves righteous.
It is interesting fact that Spanish and
Portuguese Jews pursued by the Holy Inquisition left their countries and went
to other places, including England, where they resided and started new life. It
means that Shakespeare was able to have acquaintances or just occasional
meetings with Jewish money lenders in London. The Jews represented the figure
of Other in medieval Europe: different traditions and different religion, books
with bizarre letters, etc. even their clothes was different (off-topic: David
Liss represented a Portuguese Sephardic Jew in London in his
"financial" novels).
It's interesting to also note that Shakespeare
was influenced by a contemporary source in Marlowe's 'Jew of Malta'.
Shakespeare brings more humanity to his Jew Shylock, maybe because he brings
his reading of Montaigne's Essays to bear. Shylock becomes an almost tragic
figure after the court judgement scene. He ends up as an outsider in Venice,
miles away from his homeland, forced by Antonio's counter-revenge to renounce
his own religion in favour of Christianity and so he is barred from Synagogues
and at the same rejected by the traditional Christian community too. He is
totally isolated, even from his own daughter Jessica too. It reminds me of “King
Lear”. In some ways, Shylock is a man more sinned against than sinning... He's
not entirely blameless, and clings too strongly to extracting his pound of
flesh. But ultimately he suffers disproportionately badly at the hands of
Antonio. Who is the Merchant of Venice really here? Again, these are not
clear-cut issues.
An also interesting aspect of the play is the
various father and child relationships. It would appear that Bassanio's parents
are dead. Antonio is a kinsman and perhaps a surrogate father figure. Shylock
would see his daughter dead. Antonio would die for his "son".
Portia's father actually is dead but is trying to control her from beyond the
grave. Even Lancelot Gobbo's father puts in a brief appearance. This play was
probably written around the same time as Henry 4.1, where the king feels he
hasn't the son he deserves, Hotspur definitely doesn't have the father he
deserves, and there is the surrogate father Falstaff, who has the tables turned
on him in the "play extempore". This theme of father-son pairs is
revisited in Hamlet. I can imagine that Hamlet senior might have wished that
Fortinbras was his son. It would have been a short play though. Claudius is
Hamlet's "uncle-father" (and maybe his real father). Then there are Polonius
and Laertes. So my current theory is that this play is also about children
separating themselves from their parents. Antonio's duties as a parent are
over, but his world hasn't ended. He hasn't lost everything after all, neither
metaphorically nor literally. He can move on.
I really hope someone finds a sequel in their
attic, “The Merchant of Venice II: The Merchants of Venice” where Antonio and
Shylock have the same business interests and Shylock stomps round the place
muttering darkly about people undercutting his prices for silk and Jessica
rolls her eyes and tells people to ignore him. But then maybe Shylock meets a
nice lady at church and they get married and then he's quite happy doting on
his grandchildren and is only really enraged by the pet monkey which nicks all
his fruit and pulls the plants up in his garden. I hope he gets his happy
ending!
As for the “riddle” about who is the Merchant
of Venice, even here, Shakespeare makes us wonder. I prefer to believe Antonio
is the Merchant of Venice. He is the good guy. Shylock is the Wonga.com of his
day. If he wasn't a Jew many of us would probably agree that Antonio was right
to bail out people before they defaulted on Shylock's loans. Would an
Elizabethan audience have thought Antonio went too far in physically and
verbally abusing Shylock though? I don't know. Shylock has to be stopped from
taking his pound of flesh, doesn't he? When Portia offers him the chance to be
merciful, which he declines, is she just setting a trap? I don't believe that it was Shakespeare's intention, but I don't know. I like Stephen Greenblatt's idea that Shakespeare just
couldn't write Shylock as simple villain, even if it meant "spoiling"
his play. Whether for the sake of realism or out of sympathy, he cannot make
Shylock a monster:
"Thou torturest
me, Tubal: it was my turquoise; I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor:
I would not have given
it for a wilderness of monkeys."
I think Shakespeare mitigates Shylock's pursuit
of his bond by making him swear an oath at the height of his grief. That is why
he cannot go back in the court scene:
"An oath, an
oath, I have an oath in heaven:
Shall I lay perjury
upon my soul?
No, not for
Venice."
Antonio represents the system, who is prepared
by all means to preserve his status by calling on favours from his fellow
nobility and a judicial system, in the famous scene with Portia, which is
designed to benefit the Venetian establishment. The play represents two types
of commerce, the unyielding, tough outsider Shylock and Antonio who plays the
system and ultimately comes out on top. Shakespeare does not signal which of
these characters he prefers, he presents them as characters and it is the
audience who decides which one they most identify with. In a sense Antonio is
the 'insider'/insider trading. Maybe Shylock represents today's financial
traders working outside the traditional banking system??? Intriguing. One has to read “Time magazine” in the May 23, 2016 edition: “Saving Capitalism” by Rana
Foroohar page 23-28 to see how Shakespeare can still look so modern to us.
Shakespeare's plays are ever relevant. Our
modern world is always changing and the changes ask of us that we should
re-examine our attitudes to one another, question our values and what we
consider to be important, to reassess our positions in the world and the
positions of others, and to put ourselves in the positions of others.
Shakespeare's multifaceted characters and his posing of questions that he does
not glibly answer for us helps to provide the start of many a necessary
conversation within and between ourselves.
NB: All pictures taken from my Rowse.
NB: All pictures taken from my Rowse.
