Monday, February 16, 2009
Week Four: The Merchant of Venice
This week, we'll be continuing with The Merchant of Venice. Franklin, Leon, and Ben will kick off our discussion by asking us to think about similarities and differences between Barabas and Shylock. Since this is such an enormous topic, it might be useful to begin our conversation online. Any thoughts? Or any thoughts on the other topics we tackled on Thursday (the rings, male friendships, conversion)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related to what was being said in class about the relationships in the play between men and women versus the relationships between men and other men, I found it interesting that in the later scenes of the play, Shakespeare has some of the women dressing up as men. What does this suggest about these aforementinoed relationships?
ReplyDeleteAlso, in Act 2 Scene 6, Jessica, when she is speaking to Lorenzo, says, "Cupid himself would blush to see me thus transformed to a boy." Is Shakespeare inferring something about the relationships between men and other men as opposed to those between men and women?
Tommy
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShylock seems pleased with Antonio's declaration of insolvency. He fixates himself upon exacting revenge for the transgressions he claims to have been committed against him and his Jewish brethren by Antonio:
ReplyDeleteIf it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and hind’red me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies–and what’s his reason? I am a Jew (III.i.50-55).
Obtaining a pound of Antonio’s flesh is far more important for Shylock than reversing the fiscal loss that he has incurred. He is, in fact, unmoved by and disinterested interested in Antonio’s friends’ offers to pay several times what is owed to him in an effort to save Antonio’s life.
What does Shylock's insistence on having Antonio punished tell us about Shakespeare's characterization of Shylock as a Jew? More importantly, what does it signify about religious conflict between Christians and Jews in London during the Renaissance period?
- Rishabh
Centering on a comparison of Barabas and Shylock, the Jew of Malta and the Merchant of Venice seem to complement each other very well, sometimes in opposing ways. I saw Barabas as the victim at the beginning of the Jew of Malta, who does not gain the upperhand until later in the play. Shylock starts out in the Merchant of Venice with the legal upperhand, yet ultimately and abruptly loses it at the end. Yet in both, narrative shock seems to push my sympathies towards the Jewish characters because of the sudden way the ground just caves under them (in Barabas's case, quite literally). I can't decide who gains more of my sympathy, though, because it shifts every time I rethink things. What are other peoples' thoughts on the effects of the opposing narrative arcs of the Jews?
ReplyDeleteI am interested in how both of our authors use the Bible in each of their plays. Marlowe has Barabas outdo Job in I. ii, where he claims he "had at home, and in mine argosy,/ and other ships that came from Egypt last,/ as much as would have bought [Job's] beasts and him" (I. ii. 191-193). I think Marlowe is parodying Job here, especially since Job also has friends who try and cheer him up, but to no avail, as the other Jews in this scene do.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Merchant of Venice," Shakespeare gives Shylock a monologue in which he praises Jacob for using intrigue to gain more lambs for himself--a strange passage from Genesis. Antonio, however, offers a more Christian reading of the Old Testament passage: "This was a venture, sir, that Jacob served for,/ a thing not in his power to bring to pass,/ but swayed and fashioned by the hand of heaven" (I. iii. 88-90). Where Marlowe uses the Bible as a source of parody, Shakespeare utilizes it as an implement for undermining Judaism before his Christian audience. Shakespeare is more anti-Semitic because unlike Marlowe's portrayals, Shakespeare's Christians are obviously morally superior to Shylock. Marlowe shows religion itself in a bad light.
Will
3.5.72-82
ReplyDeleteJessica speaks of Portia as a blessing for Bassanio, through which he is able to find the "joys of heaven on earth."She explains that if the gods were to make a wager between two women, Portia being one of them, they would have to add many extra "perks" to the opposing woman to make the wager a fair one.
Why is the daughter of the man that Portia tricks out of his bounty so infatuated with her? Are we supposed to believe that Jessica has completely abandoned her father along with her religion in her quest for love? Perhaps her beliefs stem only from the standpoint of love, Portia symbolizing a fair and noble prize which is Bassanio's heaven on earth as long as he "merits" it. Does she wish that she herself takes this role in Lorenzo's life?
Shakespeare shows us in The Merchant of Venice that the male-male relationship is much stronger than that of the female-male. Antonio and Bassanio would do anything for each other and they are not afraid to admit it. Antonio is willing to give up a pound of flesh for Bassanio's happiness whereas the men in the play can't even hold on to the rings as a symbol of their love.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there is a descrepancy within the relationships in The Merchant of Venice, the female characters do not seem to mind. Portia does nothing when Bassanio says in court that he would give up everying, including his wife, for Antonio. They women also laugh off the ring scandal. Above all, it seems as though the men have all of the control in this play
-Hayley
Passage I.iii.161-180
ReplyDeleteShylock speaks with his God and questions the value of a pound of flesh. He confesses that he would rather have Antonio's friendship, which is an interesting statement coming out of an allegedly bloodthirsty Jew. Soon after Shylock laments that the Christians "own hard dealings teaches them suspect the thought of others" (lines 162-3), Antonio and Bassanio pass their own judgment of Shylock at the end of the passage.
How does this passage reflect upon the interaction between Jews and Christians?
1.3.111-124
ReplyDeleteHere Shylock is showing his disdain for our Christian heroes, citing their many transgressions against him and wondering why they would ask him for money. The incredulity and scorn present in this passage lends further insight into Shylock's character: he isn't saying he won't lend them money (and we all know he does in the end) but he is saying their actions should make him deny them. This clear show of mercy and action without spite continue to make Shylock the more Christian of any of these characters. His 'mercy' and preaching in this instance do remind me of certain preachers I have encountered... Like Michelle, I wonder how these passages reflect on interfaith interactions, but also on how the faiths reflect each other in their traits and scorn of the other.
I've been thinking about what we said in class about how we feel more sympathy for Shylock than Barabas. I'm not sure I agree with this, and think that both characters' complexities make them both easy and hard to sympathize with. We like Barabas more at the beginning of the Jew of Malta because of his unwavering love for Abigail, and the miserable bad luck he experiences when all his belongings are taken from him. Although Barabas becomes insane after this loss and poisons his own daughter, I cannot help but feel sympathy for his character because I know that he was originally a moral person. By contrast, Shylock seems sneaky from the beginning of The Merchant of Venice because of his utter lack of relationship with Jessica and his request for a pound of Antonio's flesh. Can we not claim that Shylock was crazy from the start?
ReplyDeleteThe start of Act 4 Scene 1, at about line 16, has the Duke speaking of Shylock's lack of a heart, mentioning 'brassy bosoms' and 'rough hearts of flint.' He also references the Turks, I think, for the only time in the play. Shakespeare seems to couple the Jews and Turks together to convey a lack of emotion. It's also interesting that his choice of words includes 'brass' and 'flint,' which calls to mind Portia's use of different materials in her three caskets.
ReplyDeleteA little later, Antonio mentions Shylock's 'Jewish heart,' which leads to the Duke bringing up the subject of mercy in line 88. It seems, from this progression, that mercy can be defined as something produced from the heart, which Shylock seemingly lacks. I found it interesting that this argument becomes a matter of the heart versus the head.
Tommy Moore
I was looking through the play again and happened to across Gobbo's and Lancelot's dialogue, beginning in 2.2.1.
ReplyDeleteThe strange dialogue and whimsical nature of it is a tad puzzling for me. The two characters, especially Gobbo, quickly fade into irrelevance after the dialogue and do not seem to contribute any true substance to the play.
Are the characters there for comic relief, which is the most straightforward way of viewing them, or is their role more substantial but at the same time more enigmatic?
Especially unusual to me is Lancelot's murmurings to himself about whether he should run away or not from Shylock. He calls Shylock "the very devil incarnation" yet does not seem to provide any reasons as to why he's the devil's incarnation. Is it simply because he's a Jew?
Here's a post for Doctor Faustus, since I haven't yet figured out how to make my own subjects.
ReplyDeleteMarlowe draws a clear comparison between atheism (or demon summoning and the like) and literacy. When Faustus first meets Mephistopheles he is given book upon book upon book, so the audience first perceives sin as coming from books. After all, the demon was summoned from a book in the first place! Envy, also, in the interview of the Seven Deadly Sins, wishes all the books were burned because she is not literate. Faustus' last line is "I'll burn all my books. Ah, Mephistopheles!"
What was his purpose in portraying blasphemy as literacy or intellectualism? Is he placing a red herring in the debate over his own religion, or pleasing the royalty du jour? It doesn't seem to me that modern thought has changed much, as education and faith seem to be inversely related. Was Marlowe merely making a philosophical statement, or a more personal one?