The Merchant of Venice

I was only a few scenes into The Merchant of Venice when I realized that I was reading something much better and more fired with genius than I had been led to believe. I had heard this described as Shakespeare's most controversial play; an unfortunate indulgence of anti-Semitism – for you see, they pontificate, even the great artists have flaws and the prejudices of their time… Aren't we so much more sophisticated nowadays… Well, no. Just no. This was incredible. And it reaffirms my suspicion – crystallized by my reading of Nabokov's Lolita – that you should never doubt a master, particularly when he is being pilloried. For, like Shylock, it is more likely that he is just being miscast by his critics, those disingenuous and show more self-regarding folks around him…

I find it incredible that people are so dense as not to see that the play – a comedy, mark you – that gives us "All that glisters is not gold" and "The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" is a satire of Christian hypocrisy and not some crude anti-Semitic screed. Is it one of our first true satires, our black comedies? I find it a precursor to Lolita, which, in seeming to indulge in something awful (there paedophilia; here anti-Semitism) and firing it with inventive wordplay, knowingly shows us how contemptible that thing is and, more, exposes our complacency. The fact that the Nazis staged productions of this play in the 1930s is the darkest of ironies, and shows what crude, degenerate fools they really were. Thank God that Shakespeare, one of the real masters of our human race, had a sense of humour.

Look at the title. The Merchant of Venice. As Portia asks, "which is the merchant here, and which the Jew?" (pg. 90). Is it Antonio or is it Shylock? She cannot tell just by looking at them. Hath not a Jew eyes, and hands (pg. 68)? Shylock's degradation in the court and among his peers is unfair and it is complete. There is no triumphalism in Shakespeare here, even if there is from his 'Christian' characters, as Shylock is spat at in the streets simply for being a Jew and his daughter runs off with a renegade, stealing all his money to boot, and the 'impartial' courts do everything they can to rule in favour of Antonio. Shylock's behaviour is clearly exacerbated by the loss of his daughter and by others' mockery (and foreknowledge) of this. By the end, Shylock is defeated and degraded and pitiable. He is very much a man here, flesh and blood and a tired soul, and not the supernatural demon his financial enemies are wont to cast him as. Clerk, give him leave to go (pg. 96). The Jew is always onto a losing suit (pg. 87), no matter what he does. The audience – any audience, even a Tudor one – must be sympathetic to Shylock for this, even if the play's other characters are not. It would undermine the moral rightness of any play if they were not, even if – because of the mores of the time – it remains a secret sympathy. In fact, the play only works as a comedy if this is the case. How sweet the moonlight and the music, our happy protagonists soliloquise (pg. 101), but the audience/reader doesn't feel like sharing in their triumph. Shakespeare shows that the audience cannot take their characters – their purported protagonists – as guide. All that glisters is not gold.

The examples are so plentiful that one struggles to choose between them. There is the prominent theme with Portia's three chests – one gold, one silver, one lead – which she uses to determine her successful suitor. When Jessica, Shylock's daughter, elopes with Lorenzo and her father's wealth, Gratiano remarks that she has become a Christian now. By becoming a thief (pg. 59). The 'Christian husbands' of the play (pg. 94) are all too eager to give their wedding rings away in the face of mild pressure from near-strangers, but the more steadfast Jew Shylock has his heirloom ring stolen by his wanton daughter. Guess which of these rings is the only one not returned to its owner by the end of the play? Faith riveted to flesh (pg. 105), those rings, and it is so easy for them to break with their faith here, however self-righteous they are about Antonio's infamous 'pound of flesh'.

You see now why I am so incredulous that people dumbly label this a racist, bigoted play. That all-important line, "all that glisters is not gold", is followed immediately by "Gilded tombs do worms infold" (pg. 62). This is about the hypocrisy of Christians and of Christendom, that whited sepulchre. That equally important line, "The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" (pg. 44): note it well. Shakespeare expands upon the theme on page 72: "So may the outward shows be least themselves: The world is still deceived with ornament… In religion, what damnèd error, but some sober brow Will bless it, and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?" The roots of anti-Semitism are to be found in the New Testament, which places gentiles over Jews, and gives 'Christians' an excuse for anti-Jewish prejudice and bloodletting. The juxtaposition of Jewish Shylock and Christian (and Christ-like martyr) Antonio shows that the New Testament, which gets a better reputation than its precursor, is not so different from the fire-and-brimstone of the Old Testament, just as there is not so much difference, in practice, between a Jew and a Christian.

The reactionary dimness of some regarding The Merchant of Venice makes its reading all the more delicious for those of us not too tone-deaf to hear the true notes of Portia's song. She feeds Bassanio, her preferred suitor, unsubtle hints as to answer her riddle, just as later they all make a mockery of the Venetian judicial system, where – even with the deck stacked against Shylock – the Christians can only win by shamelessly subverting the court, by subterfuge and self-justification and, most ridiculously – this is a comedy after all – by Portia in motley. Note that most of the condemnatory lines cited above, about gross ornament and vice disguised as virtue, are said in the play by the Christian characters (just like all the anti-Semitic lines). Just as Shylock condemns himself by bringing his case to the courts, so do these 'Christians' condemn themselves by arguing their case in the theatre. The Venetian courts may be unforgiving to Jews, but the Shakespearean play is even more unforgiving to hypocrites.

The Merchant of Venice is not, funnily enough, a festering sore of provincial, anti-Semitic bile. Some people just can't see past the end of their noses, and some people just want to see racism everywhere. Hard food for Midas, indeed (pg. 73). It is a biting satire that Swift or Nabokov would be proud to own. It is more Mossad than Nazi: it is the Jew biting back. (You could have a dangerous modern rendition of this play set in an Israeli court, only Eichmann walks free.) It is the Jew throwing the casual anti-Semitic prejudice back at us. It is Shylock bringing us to our own constructions – our courts – and to our own sanctimonious pledges, and saying: Antonio, look to your bond (pg. 68). On page 89, Gratiano, of all people, who has helped Lorenzo steal Shylock's daughter and his wealth, asks the Jew to have a heart! "Can no prayers pierce thee?", he asks. Shylock's reply proves that he is not irredeemable, only that he does not believe his peers have it in them to redeem, to forgive – that fundamental Christian ideal. "No," Shylock replies, "none that thou hast wit enough to make." Let every man look to his bond. Shakespeare calls us out. show less

Was this supposed to be a comedy? I found it to be unbelievably sad. Shylock was a sympathetic character to me; no matter that he literally wanted a pound of flesh from Antonio. Very rarely was he referred to by his name. He was mostly referred to as "the Jew" or just "Jew," which I found to be a bit contemptible. I do have to keep in mind how different the sensibilities were back in Shakespeare's time, and I do wonder if the audience nodded to each other in a knowing way with every anti-Semitic slur.

Not my favorite play--no, and mostly because it makes me feel uncomfortable and sad, but that's how I always feel when I read or watch anything showing how terrible human beings are to one another. The writing is as lush and beautiful as show more you would expect from Shakespeare, but I did not feel good leaving this. show less

First and foremost, this play is like dagger sheathed in velvet. Reading it superficially, and then diving in, The Merchant of Venice is as bad as you may have heard, if not worse. As a Jewish man, it hurts to laud this work. The character of Shylock, the deplorable antisemitic archetype, is a horrific travesty to watch and witness interact with decadent Venice, that fucking hollow pearl.

There's no 'but' here. As difficult a read as this play was at times, it was, and is, a shattering masterwork of unquestionable brilliance. Its unpleasantness to a contemporary audience is integral to this. Because even though Shylock is a force and a presence in the story, his existence is surprisingly downplayed, the allusions to his presence being show more given equal if not greater force than his actual time on presence. Shylock is an external, something that existed before Venice and will continue after its collapse, the quintessential 'other' made so by the reciprocal invisible war between Jew and Gentile. Each supplanting and destroying one another in that human tradition of putting life above life because of life, a=a because we say so.

I wonder though, akin to other characters in Shakespeare's canon, if Shylock is simultaneously (and paradoxically) more and less than what he appears to be. The Jewish Italian Merchant, Usurer. In ostensibly Christian Venice, how can he and that world coexist? Like with many other Shakes plays, as much is stated as is left ambiguous.

Sharpened beyond measure, almost a glorious wounding, peace be to Shylock. show less

Shylock lends money to Antonio who loves Bassanio who in turn gold-digs Portia who has enough money to never need a man but for some reason feels the need to be a filial daughter to her dead father's wishes. Shylock's daughter says filial piety is dumb and runs away with a christian, leaving Shylock angry and ready to cash in his pound of flesh (pun intended). A courtroom drama ensues in which the titular character is saved by a cross-dressing Portia, though she hears some pretty ardent love confessions from her husband, directed towards another man, in the process. Each of the "nice" christians in charge of the law then decide to take as much away from Shylock as it is possible and force his conversion. Is this Shakespeare giving show more problematic entertainment to a 16th century audience or being woke about religious intolerance? You decide. show less

Shylock is a Jewish money-lender who faces the scorn and contempt of the Christian business community in 16th century Venice on a daily basis. Quite understandably, he seethes with anger over the anti-semitic slurs to which he is routinely subjected, but seizes the chance to get even when his arch-rival, the merchant Antonio, needs to borrow money. Shylock’s terms for the loan are simple: no interest will be charged (as per the Christian tradition against usury), but he will literally carve a pound of flesh from Antonio’s body if the principal repayment is even a day late. Of course, Antonio does miss that deadline and Shylock fully intends to carry out the contract’s sinister terms. However, the resourceful Portia—who has just show more married Antonio’s best friend Bassanio—steps into the legal dispute at the last moment, sparing Antonio’s life at the cost of everything that Shylock possesses or holds dear, including the religious faith to which he has been devoted his whole life. Antonio leaves the courtroom physically and financially intact—he does not even have to repay the loan—while Shylock exits a wholly broken man.

Does the basic plot of The Merchant of Venice sound like the stuff of one of Shakespeare’s more rollicking comedies? If you think not, then we think alike. Indeed, I had a decidedly mixed reaction to this story, which I read rather than saw acted out on stage. On one hand, it is Shakespeare, so the story was briskly paced and the word play was occasionally brilliant (e.g., the time-honored expressions “pound of flesh,” “all that glisters is not gold,” and “the quality of mercy is not strained” appear in this play). However, I found it hard to root either for the alleged good guys—Antonio, Bassanio, Gratiano, Lorenzo—or against Shylock, who never really deserves anything that happens to him throughout the tale and is even betrayed in a remarkably callous manner by his own daughter, Jessica. The problem may well be that, in Shylock, the Immortal Bard created an intriguing and incredibly complex character when all he probably meant to do was provide some dramatic tension to get in the way of an otherwise silly love story. In fact, in this respect I am tempted to say that Shakespeare was hoisted by his own petard, but that would be a different play altogether. show less

49. The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
Originally performed: ~1597
format: 207-page Signet Classic paperback, acquired in May
read: Aug 25 – Sep 30, 7 hr 47 min, 2.4 min/page
rating: 4
locations: Venice & Belmont
about the author April 23, 1564 – April 23, 1616

Editor: [[Kenneth Myrick]] 1965
Other contributors: [[Sylvan Barnett]] - series editor and author of an essay on the stage and screen history, 1998, [[Nicholas Rowe]] -from ‘The Works of Mr. William Shakespeare’, 1709?, [[William Hazlitt]] - from ‘Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays’, 1818, Anonymous from The Saturday Review, 8 Nov, 1879 - 'Henry Irving’s Shylock, [[Elmer Edgar Stoll]] - from ‘Shylock’, 1911, [[Linda Bamber]] - The Avoidance of Choice: A show more Woman’s Privilege, 1982, [[Alexander Leggatt]] - The Fourth and Fifth Acts, 1974, [[Robert Smallwood]] - The End of The Merchant of Venice: Four Versions, 1996

Shakespeare's infamous nuanced but still disturbing antisemitism. This is actually a terrific play that quickly generates stage drama has a really powerful scene in the first act where the targeted Jew, Shylock, and the main good guy, a notably kind and sad hero, Antonio, tell each other their hatreds and make their deal within this context of mutual hatred.

SHYLOCK

...

What should I say to you? Should I not say
'Hath a dog money? is it possible
A cur can lend three thousand ducats?' Or
Shall I bend low and in a bondman's key,
With bated breath and whispering humbleness, Say this;
'Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last;
You spurn'd me such a day; another time
You call'd me dog; and for these courtesies
I'll lend you thus much moneys'?

ANTONIO

I am as like to call thee so again,
To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too.
If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not
As to thy friends; for when did friendship take
A breed for barren metal of his friend?
But lend it rather to thine enemy,
Who, if he break, thou mayst with better face
Exact the penalty.

Shylock is a problem as he is a caricature of the bad Jews of Renaissance Europe, one who is fully obsessed about money and has limited other deep feelings or concerns. But what is most disturbing from modern perspectives is that the play celebrates the tormenting of this Jew, and how that deep dislike provides a kind of common bond for all the other characters. It's Venice society against Shylock. There is room for performances to take this different ways. The text does play at undermining Christian practices and manages to actually undermine every character. The quote above is kind Antonio admitting he spits on Jews. And Portia, the super clever heroine and savior, is exposed for her many commonplace biases.

I'm happy to have read this and see how the plot actually plays out and what makes this play important. And I came away with lot. Shylock‘s no nonsense directness holds a natural dignity no matter his dark purpose. And Portia is compromised no matter how clever she is or who she saved. A lot depends on actor interpretation and, if we believe the commentary in the after essays, the performance of these two characters seems to make or break the play. Modern audiences want nuance, whereas historically these characters might be exaggerated one way or another, successfully.

I don't think I can really recommend on Shakespeare, but you have to be open to what this play is to be able to appreciate it. If you're oversensitive to the antisemitism, that might ruin the play. Of course, it would also be justified.

2020
http://www.librarything.com/topic/322920#7279945 show less

And so ends my Year of Shakespeare. My roommates and I have, from April 2020 - April 2021, read aloud all of Shakespeare's plays (including Edward III, Pericles, and Two Noble Kinsmen, and excluding the contested Double Falsehood and Sir Thomas More, though those may be yet to come). What a ride. Honestly, I would recommend it to anyone for whom the idea holds some interest. There's a lot of underappreciated Shakespeare (though that seems like an oxymoron), some of which I'd read before but lots of which I hadn't. Stand-outs in the "unsung" crowd were Coriolanus, Two Noble Kinsmen, Troilus and Cressida, Henry IV Part 2, Antony and Cleopatra, and to a lesser extent Henry VI Part 3, King John, Edward III and Pericles.

But none of this has show more been about Merchant of Venice. So here goes-- mostly I don't quite know what to think about the play, but I'll take a stab at it. It seems to me that the main thrust of the play is that every person in it turns all of their personal relationships (with the possible exception of the relationship between Launcelot Gobbo and Old Gobbo) into monetary transactions-- not just employing each other, but buying each other's love, stealing from each other, praising beauty in terms of gold and jewels. Marriages especially are wealth contracts. Every character is turned into a merchant of affection. And then Shylock is the one among them who makes the natural extension of that paradigm and wants to turn a monetary transaction into one of flesh, literally, for which attempt he is completely undone and destroyed. Not that you SHOULD be able to cut a pound of flesh out of someone who owes you money. Just that Shylock's claim literalizes, and thereby exposes, the terrible and depressing way in which everybody is behaving. That's my interpretation, anyway. Oh and then Act 5 happens because Shakespeare remembered he was supposed to be writing a comedy.

In an ideal performance of Merchant of Venice, Shylock's "You have among you many a purchased slave" speech should be the center of the whole play. show less