Customer Reviews

The Merchant of Venice

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

"Merchant" is categorized among Shakespeare's comedies, primarily because of the romantic subplot that ends --as most of the Bard's comedies do-- in serial weddings. But, of course, it is far more than a typical romantic comedy. Shakespeare ostensibly intended to write about the complicated theme of exterior versus interior. The value of gold and money against the value of friendship and loyalty. Shylock, the Jewish moneylender is portrayed as greedy and more concerned about his money than he is about his own daughter.

But modern readers have a hard time sympathizing with Antonio the Merchant and his superficial and hateful friends, Bassanio, Gratiano, et al. They are racist, quick to judge, wasteful, and unconcerned about others. They are delighted to treat Shylock like a dog and to invent phony excuses for their own nasty behavior. Shylock is no innocent victim. Indeed, he brings about his own ruin. But in a play whose key passage is Portia's courtroom discourse on the quality of mercy, mercy and justice are hard to find in any character. Shakespeare's language is as powerful as ever in this play, but the unlikeable Shylock and the venom doled out to him by his sordid persecutors makes this play a stomach-churning challenge.

I clicked on the "Kindle Version" link from the paperback "The Merchant of Venice (Folger Shakespeare Library)" since I had purchased several of the Folger hard-copy editions and found the full facing page annotations a huge help in getting the most from the plays. I was worried that the alternating pages of annotations and text would be a bit cumbersome on the Kindle. I need not have worried, as the annotations, and all other extra features, are MISSING. The product description, however, of the Kindle edition does state that the extra features are present on this eBook. Amazon, please convert the Folger Shakespeare Library to the Kindle including all extra features with annotations. In the meantime, please clean up the descriptions for this product line.

I would rather not write this review, or have to relate to the question it raises for me. For that question has been with me most of my adult life. It relates to the question of whether or not it is moral for me as a Jew to read, take pleasure in works of 'high culture' works of even 'greatness' when these have Anti- Semitic elements in them.

The problem is especially acute in regard to this greatest of all human dramatists Shakespeare. From a quite early age Shakespeare's work, especially 'Hamlet' 'Lear' and 'Macbeth' have been sources of uplift and inspiration to me. I have to come know myself and my world better through them.

And Shakespeare the greatest and most admired of writers is of course in Borges words, 'the creator who after God created most'.

How then reconcile this admiration with the knowledge that one of Shakespeare's great plays has as its heart a villain , an object of scorn and ridicule, whose villainy is bound up essentially with his Jewishness?

Here I must say that though I have tried very hard to be on the side of those who believe Shakespeare fundamentally stressed this great speech :

" 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, heal'd by the same means

warm'd and cool'd 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? "

I have in my reading and watching the play come to the conclusion that Shakespeare could accept a Jew as fully human only if he converted to Christianity.

This great play then can be witnessed by me only with a feeling of anger, humiliation and pain.

I'm not entirely sure how one should set about reviewing a Shakespeare play. I recently reread "The Merchant of Venice" in order to reacquaint myself with the story so that I could read a related book. Despite many critics' beliefs that the play is anti-semetic, "The Merchant of Venice" is a timeless look at the role that material desires can play in our lives.

As one of Shakespeare's comedies, there is sure to be the sub-plots that include romantic intrigue and women in disguise. The play begins with the title merchant Antonio and his friend Bassiano making a deal with Shylock, a rich Jew. The deal is that Shylock will sponsor their merchant ships; if their ships should fail, Shylock can enact his revenge on Antonio by procuring one pound of his flesh. Meanwhile, Bassiano has fallen in love with Portia, a rich heiress, and tries to win her hand, while ultimately making sure that his friend Antonio doesn't lose his to Shylock.

Granted there is mistreatment of Shylock that is rooted in his Jewishness; but the jibes that are directed toward him deal more so with his attitude toward money than to his heritage. For Shylock is more concerned with his money than he is with his daughter; and when she runs away to marry a Christian, his sole concern is the jewels and money she stole from him. Shylock is a hateful man, not because he is a Jew, but because of his actions (and many seem to miss that). When Bassiano and Antonio's venture fails, Antonio is doomed to die at the hand of Shylock. But in typical Shakespearean comedy fashion, a woman in disguise wins the day and defeats Shylock's supposedly ingenous scheme.

I truly believe that some of the best scenes are not those that Shylock is in, yet whenever anyone speaks of "The Merchant of Venice" he is the main name mentioned. The scenes between Portia and her various suitors as they try to solve the riddle to winning her hand tells the reader much about the ways of man's thinking; it is the men who chose gold and silver that cannot court Portia. Rather it is the man who recognizes the worth in all that doesn't glitter who wins the prize.

One cannot read Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice without realizing the significance that religion takes in the play, specifically the portrayal of the Jewish and Christian characters. When we first encounter the play's principal Jew, Shylock, we can only feel resentment towards him for the way he carries himself and conducts his business. Then, when first exposed to the play's principal Christian characters--Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia--the audience likely feels sympathetic towards them because of their unfortunate run-ins with the villainous Shylock. But I wonder if this is a truly accurate reading of the play. It appears that critics are divided on whether Shakespeare was further advancing anti-Semitism existent at the time by depicting Shylock in denigrating stereotypes throughout the play or whether he was actually condemning anti-Semitic behavior by turning Shylock into a sympathetic figure by the play's end. It is my contention that Shakespeare is merely reflecting societal norms at the time as he indicts religion altogether.

Though we cannot forget Shylock's appeal to humanity in his "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech, nor Portia's appeal for mercy at the court trial, there is far too much evidence of misdeeds and hypocrisy by all of these characters to think Shakespeare is "picking sides" in this battle of religions. Shylock's greed and need for revenge are certainly damning portrayals of his faith given how religious he claims to be. But given the "holier-than-thou" attitude's of Venice's Christians and their hypocritical actions to the contrary of their religion, it is clear to me Shakespeare has a major problem with Christians who "talk the talk" but do not "walk the walk." I will discuss the villainous representation of Shylock, then analyze the hypocrisy of the play's primary Christian characters and will question if these Christians embody the righteous example of which they speak.

The portrayal of Shylock is paramount throughout the play, mainly because we are torn between disliking him for his cruelty on one hand and empathizing with him because of the abuse he suffers on the other. When Shylock enters the play in the Act 1, Bassanio is trying to get a loan from him using Antonio's credit because he needs a large sum of money so he can appropriately woo Portia. There is certainly no denying Shylock's passion for accumulating wealth. The other characters frequently comment on Shylock's greed throughout the play, and he even tells his daughter that he dreams about moneybags. Shylock suffers ridicule from the Christian community because he charges high interest rates on loans, but also because he is a Jew, comparable to a dog or the devil in their eyes. As Shylock considers the loan, he seems more interested in having Antonio bound to him than with the loan itself, and we soon learn of Antonio and Shylock's mutual resentment. Shylock is hesitant to help Antonio out because Antonio has hurt his own business dealings in the past by lending money at no charge, but also because he is a Christian. The evidence of Shylock's greed continues to mount. In Act 2, Solanio describes "the dog Jew" running through the streets of Venice and crying more earnestly for his lost ducats than for his lost daughter (who has ended their relationship, married a Christian and converted to Christianity, further enraging her estranged father).

Beginning in Act 3 and continuing into the first parts of Act 4, Shylock repeats statements like "I will have my bond"--the dubious "pound of flesh" from Antonio's body. Shylock's repetitions of his claim turn into a death chant of sorts for Antonio since he is now unable repay the loan. When asked what he plans to do with Antonio's piece of flesh since it's obviously worthless to him Shylock replies, "To bait fish withal...if it will feed nothing else it will feed my revenge" (Act 3, Scene 1, lines 45-46). We can now see Shylock eagerly awaiting his chance to kill Antonio and get his symbolic revenge on all the town's Christians, whom he despises.

Despite Portia's famed speech at the dramatic trial in Act 4, in which she lectures about Christian goodness and "the quality of mercy," Shylock refuses to show Antonio mercy. He claims he "craves the law" (Scene 1, line 203) and will not be merciful and forgiving to Antonio, and no one can change his mind. All of these incidents are constant reinforcements of Shylock's bitterness and cold-heartedness, which has been shown throughout the play, and which are clearly not in line with the virtuous nature of Judaism.

Of course we know that there is an unexpected change of events about to happen to Shylock. Instead of having his bond, we find that Shylock's bond with Antonio is impossible to recover since he may not shed a drop of Antonio's Christian blood in the process. Portia then orders Shylock's property seized and "mercifully" allows him to convert to Christianity rather being executed for attempting to take the life of a fellow Venetian, seemingly "delivering" him from his Jewishness. But up until Shylock's sentencing, we might be somewhat content with the depictions of the evil Jew and the righteous Christians. But as we examine Act 4 (and the entire play) more closely, we are forced to recognize that perhaps Shylock is actually a victim of the hypocritical Christian society in which he lives. Being able to read this play in a post-Holocaust and post-Civil Rights Movement world, we cannot help but have some empathy towards Shylock for the way he is treated, though clearly he is not a very virtuous man in his own right.

To analyze Christian hypocrisy in this play, it is necessary to go back to Portia's dramatic speech given at the trial, discussed previously. Portia preaches about the blessings of showing mercy, almost playing the role of a preacher. But if we retrace her steps back to Act 1, we hear Portia confessing to Christian hypocrisy. "Portia alludes to the familiar commonplace of the breach between Christian precept and practice" (Hassel, 117). This assertion comes from the following passage spoken by Portia:

"If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches, and poor men's cottages princes' palaces. It is a good divine that follows his own instructions. I can easier teach twenty that were good to be done than to be one of the twenty to follow mine own teaching" (Act 1, Scene 2, lines 11-15).

The primary Christian characters of this play are representative of the people living at the time. Antonio, the merchant of Venice himself, has a great reputation among his fellow Christians who see him as a righteous and self-sacrificing citizen and friend. His bigotry towards Jews is not frowned upon because all of the others share his belief. Behind Shylock's back, Antonio ridicules him as a moneylender, but then enters into a loan agreement with him anyway. Antonio shows no mercy to Shylock when Portia pronounces his sentence. If Antonio were a genuine Christian, would he not have humbly accepted his acquittal then tried to reconcile his differences with Shylock? Instead, Antonio agrees to take half of Shylock's possessions without objection, thus eliminating his main business rival. These actions (along with Antonio's berating of Shylock) are not of Christian compassion and mercy but of selfishness and religious hypocrisy.

Now I briefly turn to Bassanio. Bassanio is portrayed as a bit of a playboy--squandering all he has, refusing to work and willing to beg for financial assistance. He is more than willing to marry Portia for financial gain. He certainly has a tendency toward materialism and consumption, which are not Christian values. Although Bassanio does not really victimize Shylock in the same way the others do, his lifestyle does tarnish the religious credibility of the Christian community.

Now I turn to Portia, who embodies this hypocritical Christian nature and does not practice what she preaches. We are clued in to her racism as she complains about one of her suitors for marriage, the dark-skinned Prince from Morocco. Portia makes the comment "If he have the condition of a saint and the complexion of a devil, I had rather he should shrive me than wive me" (Act 1, Scene 2, line 33). "Portia knows it is a sin to be a mocker, but she mocks her suitors anyway" (Hassel, 114). Portia instead settles for the gold-digging Bassanio.

Although Portia's "quality of mercy" speech sounds like a wonderful description of Christian values, it is really an ironic display of Christian talking points versus actual practice. As I mentioned earlier, Portia's words do not correlate with her deeds. She tricks Shylock in this scene, first by disguising her character, then by turning the perceived law against him, leaving him a shell of his former self while enriching her friends. Shylock's life is completely ruined and she makes an even bigger mockery of his religion. Portia appears spiteful, not compassionate, and certainly does not come off as a merciful Christian.

Though Shakespeare is a tough read for me, I think I finally came to an understanding about what this play was really trying to convey. At first glance, you find yourself hating Shylock and admiring Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia. Later, you find yourself empathizing with Shylock because of the hypocrisy of the Christian characters. While the critics have argued it both ways, I truly feel that Shakespeare is merely commenting on society as he then saw it, which turns out to be a strong indictment of both religions--or at least how their virtues are carried out by their followers.

What exactly was Shakespeare attempting with The Merchant of Venice? Was Shakespeare anti-Semitic? Does the play promote anti-Semitism? What was Shakespeare's purpose in writing such a work?

As the play opens, the eponymous Antonio's dearest friend Bassanio laments his need of cash in order to seek the hand of Portia, the heiress of a noble Venetian family. Antonio is depressed, but it is only as the play progresses that we come to guess the reason for his depression: the marriage of this dear friend will, as such events always do, change the nature of their friendship and make it less intimate. As Antonio shows no other romantic interest in the play, and is alone and lonely, this depression possibly suggests that Antonio is homosexual.

But how would the cash enable Bassanio to engage in this pursuit? In fact we never learn precisely why the money is needed. There seems to be some kind of wealth or social class requirement for playing the game whose prize is Portia's hand and Bassanio needs to purchase the trappings that would, meretriciously, enable him to appear a member of the aristocracy.

As a successful merchant, Antonio is in a position to provide his friend with the desired funds. He doesn't have the cash on hand, however, as his wealth is tied up in his trading fleet at sea. But this fleet provides collateral, and the Jewish moneylender Shylock has access to the ready cash from his own store and from that of his friend and fellow Jew and moneylender, Tubal. But why should Shylock entertain a request from Antonio, a Christian who has reviled him and spat on him in the most public space in Venice for being a Jew, a public humiliation of the most egregious sort, as well as sadistically maligned him in a number of other ways, and now touts his moral superiority by noting that he lends to his own friends without interest. Responding to Antonio's sneering arrogance, Shylock offers to lend the money at no interest -- but demands an awful penalty should the borrower default -- the famous pound of flesh. And why should he not, in the unlikely event of Antonio's default, revenge himself?

Meanwhile, Antonio's and Bassanio's friends help their friend Lorenzo assist his lover Jessica, Shylock's daughter, in running away from her father's home, which she does, stealing a substantial sum in jewelry, including Shylock's most treasured possession, his late wife's gift to him.

Bassanio passes the test of the three boxes and wins the beautiful Portia's hand.

Antonio's ships are reported lost at sea and, defaulting, he is subject to the exulting Shylock's revenge. Shylock proceeds to have the default ajudicated, but the judge fails to appear. Portia arrives, dressed as the out-of-town judge whose fairness and erudition are well-known, and proceeds to play the unsuspecting Shylock with all of Antonio's contempt, to the delight of the vindictive Jew-hater Gratiano, depriving Shylock of his revenge. The "court" relieves Shylock of half his wealth and requires him to convert to Christianity. Antonio, who defaults, pays no penalty, and in the end his ships all complete their voyages to his substantial gain.

In this play, Shakespeare both mirrors the Jew-hatred of his contemporary society and, interestingly, portrays the implicitly parallel society of Venice and its Christian characters with an undeniable condemnation hidden beneath a scrim of identification: the sneering supercilious Antonio who claims the mantle of the generous Christian; the deceiver Bassanio, who borrows a lot of money with which to appear wealthy in order to deceive his future wife; the gratuitously vicious racist, Gratiano; Shylock's daughter and future Christian Jessica, who steals from her father his most intimate keepsake; the angelic aristocrat Portia who mendaciously assumes the identity of a trusted judge and turns the law on its head for the benefit of her husband's best friend and engages in some sadistic Jew-savaging herself to the delight of all the non-Jews present (and apparently Shakespeare imagined that the audience would enjoy it as well).

Shakespeare appears to be playing both sides of the coin here, both playing to popular Jew-hating, and creating a plot which not only exposes the amorality of the Christians but also depicts Shylock as a sometimes truly sympathetic character.

The play's structure is very familiar and guaranteed to please. Evil character plots to destroy innocent protagonist, but with the help of friends the evil character is outsmarted or outmaneuvered and gets his comeuppance, while the good people live happily ever after. Shakespeare though has created a curious drama indeed. The good folks are really quite distasteful characters, though Shakespeare puts beautiful words in their mouths. And the "villain" is in fact much more than an evil stereotype. Shylock is no paragon of decency, but he is the most fully realized human being in the play and commands the careful reader's or auditor's sympathy.

Shakespeare portrayed the Christian Venetians as corrupt characters while on the surface presenting them as the sympathetic actors in a more or less conventional drama of good Christians and bad Jews. A recent book bringing together current research on the life of Shakespeare notes that the most likely identity of the "Dark Lady" to whom Shakespeare wrote a number of passionate sonnets was a Jewish woman. This book (Shakespeare, by Michael Wood) notes that Shakespeare worked in a part of London in which he must have seen Jews frequently. Wood also notes that this play was written quickly at the time of Shakespeare's liaison with the Dark Lady. Interestingly, while Shakespeare was certainly aware that he was portraying the Christian characters as corrupt, he was also treating them, as the "good guys". He was playing a very strange game, both sympathizing with the Jew Shylock, contemning, in a less than explicit manner, the Christian characters, and at the same time portraying Shylock as the evil Jew and the Christians as the beneficent characters he expected his audience to identify with.

The case can be made that, far from producing an anti-Semitic play, Shakespeare wrote a play that, while pandering to the anti-Semitic prejudices of his audience, condemns the hypocritical ethically-compromised Jew-haters of Venice, and, by extension, London.

Merchant may be one of Shakespeare's more challenging works for the modern reader. The obvious anti-semitism that underlies much of the plot and language and the forceable conversion of Shylock to Christianity near the end of the play is difficult to reconcile in our own age.

Nevertheless Merchant is categorized as a comedy and despite some of it's darker elements retains the classic comic devices of disguises , crossdressing and the denoument of festivity and multiple marriages.

What seperates this from some of the other comedies is the relatively unsympathetic characters of the major protaganists. As they celebrate their weddings and the fact that all is set right in the world the reader is left to wonder about the fate of the ostensibly evil character of Shylock. While the Merchant Antonio's fortunes are restored, Shylock is left without means. A statement perhaps regarding the practice of usury , but to me Antonio's enterprise and his willingness to commit to a bond with the moneylender when it suits him implies that Shylock has earned a rightful place in the economic world of Venice. It is his insistance on the strict adherence to his bond that ultimately leads to his undoing.

As Portia provides an idyllic description on the quality of Mercy, she and her circle dispense no mercy to Shylock in their judgement of him. Would Shylock , in an alternate ending, realizing his stubborness and forgiving the bond and being restored to his place in the community provided a more satisfying result in a comedy?

Merchant is as a result of Shakespeare's choice of ending one of if not the most controversial of his major works and is a play that leaves one in doubt regarding an appropriate reaction to it's ending.

Yes, this is a romantic comedy, and yes, it is Shakespeare, so that in itself makes it a wonderful play. But this one stands out for me because of the characters. I love Shylock the most. It's a very moving play, that embraces a large number of different dramatic styles. And who can resist Portia? Who doesn't hate Shylock. It has an interesting and fast-moving plot that captivates audiences.

have not issues...got the book on time and its in great condition. I cant see myself going to a book store and spending tons of money anymore...

The Folger editions are renown for their annotations - these are missing. A great edition has simply become mediocre at best. Disappointing.