To get us in the mood for Tuesday's performance, here is a link to a NYTimes review of a recent production of Marlowe's play, put on by Theater for a New Audience. The article includes a great shot of the play's opening scene, with F. Murray Abraham as Barabas counting his "infinite riches in a little room" (1.1.37).
Some things to think about: Rishabh pointed out at the start of class on Thursday that more than one religious group comes in for pretty sharp criticism in this play. We talked a lot about how Christians and Jews are represented in The Jew of Malta and in early modern English culture more generally. We spent less time talking about the play's Muslims. How might the presence of the Turks complicate our understanding of the Jews and Catholics in Malta, and how might their presence have affected early modern audiences' responses to Marlowe's play?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
BASSANIO
ReplyDeleteLet me choose
For as I am, I live upon the rack.
PORTIA
Upon the rack, Bassanio! then confess
What treason there is mingled with your love.
BASSANIO
None but that ugly treason of mistrust,
Which makes me fear the enjoying of my love:
There may as well be amity and life
'Tween snow and fire, as treason and my love.
PORTIA
Ay, but I fear you speak upon the rack,
Where men enforced do speak anything.
BASSANIO
Promise me life, and I'll confess the truth.
PORTIA
Well then, confess and live.
BASSANIO
'Confess' and 'love'
Had been the very sum of my confession:
O happy torment, when my torturer
Doth teach me answers for deliverance!
But let me to my fortune and the caskets.
Merchant of Venice, III. ii. 24-39
The language in this scene is centered upon torture and confession, but it is carried on between two lovers. We see this same type of thing in Kyd's Spanish Tragedy, but in a different context. It is interesting to note that Shylock is not involved here, being tortured into a confession (box), since he is the villain who will eventually convert. But Bassanio's impatience is his rack, and Portia perceives that "men enforced do speak anything." Thus, she introduces the theme of broken oaths which flourishes in the final scene.
Will (whs07@hampshire.edu)
Love and wealth are played off of eachother in and interesting way in this scene and prior as Portia's suitors are asked to choose between three caskets (of Gold, Silver, and Lead)in order to claim her as a wife. The "winning" casket ends up being the leaden one chosen by Bassanio. Its interior inscription reads "you that choose not by the view chance as fair, and choose as true...Be content and seek no new." We see that where ignorant princes chose gold and silver, Bassanio unselfishly chooses lead, leaving love to rule as the greatest of all treasures, a "fortune" of great "bliss"
ReplyDeleteI have a question/comment/observation regarding Marlowe's The Jew of Malta. Towards the end of the play (specifically IV.ii), we see Ithamore writing several letters to Barabas in an effort to blackmail him. The fact that Ithamore is able to write demonstrates that he is educated. Yet, Ithamore is a Turkish slave, supposedly a barbarian without any trace of civility. I am a little confused about this paradoxical characterization. What, if anything, does it signify?
ReplyDeleteIn The Merchant of Venice, 3.1.45-52, Shylock is bemoaning the treatment of Jews by Christians in a rather eloquent way. He declares that Jews use the same sensory organs and follow the same social rules as all other religious persons, and as such they should not expect him not to take revenge when wronged. However, speeches like this make Shylock a much more intriguing and sympathetic character than Barabas of The Jew of Malta. I certainly connect with him more than Barabas! Unfortunately, that also lends a more anti-Semitic feel to the play, since even Shylock's own daughter is ashamed to be a Jew in a much stronger way than Abigail of Marlowe's work. Is it the loss of overall anti-religion that puts the disapproval more strongly on the Shylock's shoulders than those of Barabas, or is it caused by something else?
ReplyDeleteI was intrigued by the role of women and their strength in The Merchant of Venice. Jessica is self-hating of her Jewish religion and family, and the sale of her father's ring highlights her excessive anger towards Shylock. Did Shakespeare portray Jessica this way to expose the general hatred of Jews at this time? What is the significance of having a woman with such bravery step out of her place on society? How does Jessica's relationship with Shylock differ from Abigail's relationship with Barabas in The Spanish Trajedy?
ReplyDeletePortia's development as a character is also very interesting. At first, she appears vulnerable and trapped by her father's dying wishes for her marriage. However, she emerges as a brave Shakespearian heroine. The contrast in her character between following rules stringently and breaking rules when she disguises herself as a man. I am curious about why Shakespeare created such a complex and contrasting female character.
I am confused about Balthasar's (or Portia's, whichever you prefer) reasoning that eventually prevents Shylock from fulfilling the stipulations of his bound with Antonio in the court scene.
ReplyDeleteShe says that the bound only called for a pound of flesh and solely that. That is to say, Shylock could have Antonio's flesh but not his blood, otherwise he would be charged with a crime.
Such a point seems moot to me, since how else could Shylock excise a pound of Antonio's flesh (not hair, nails, etc.) without making him bleed? It simply has to be inferred that removing a pound of flesh means removing some quantity of blood. It's common sense, the foundation, it could be argued, of law itself.
However, Portia's overly specific and nonsensical argument does save Antonio but in doing so, it also opens the door to additional means of acquiring a pound of Antonio's flesh.
Say Shylock doesn't cut Antonio's flesh but his guillotine or what have you did? Shylock didn't bleed him, the machine did and as far as I know, the bound did not say that Shylock had to do the cutting, only that he would receive the flesh...
To me, everything about the trial scene is foolish and inane and may very well be a mockery of the specificity and underhanded techniques, not to mention racially motivated sentencing, often found in law.
Even so, as grotesque as Shylock's desire for flesh is, it annoys me that Antonio should escape scot-free when he willingly entered a bound with Shylock under the agreed upon terms.
A contract or bound is a profound humanist document and it should be treated as such; it should always be carried through unless both parties decide to dissolve it under agreement.
What Antonio and his gang did just doesn't seem right to me, to say the least.
Class discussion last Thursday made me realize something interesting. Practically all the (heterosexual) romances in Merchant of Venice seem “doomed” from the start. For instance, not only did Bassanio give away Portia’s ring but also his relationship with her comes off as superficial. If I am not mistaken, he is attracted to her because of her fairness and wealth while she falls for him at first sight. It is very unlikely that these characters would live happily ever after. Bassanio would probably betray Portia’s trust again since his love for Antonio seems stronger. Furthermore, Graziano failed Nerissa’s ring test as well while Lorenzo and Jessica‘s dialogue in Act 5 Scene 1 seem to foreshadow misfortune with allusions to tragic romances. Was this intentional and if so what is Shakespeare trying to say? With all these poor matches, can we actually say The Merchant of Venice has a happy ending?
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I really disliked the ending of Merchant of Venice. The stunt Portia and Nerissa pull, tricking their husbands into giving away the rings then chastising them for it later, seems blatantly immature. Sure, there may be some logic behind this deception: to test their lover‘s loyalty. However, this part of the play still irritated me. This ring test felt inessential. In my eyes, Portia goes from a strong female figure for saving Antonio from Shylock, to a childish woman due to this juvenile prank.
--Ben
In response to Shylock's 'answer' for why he refuses to accept the monetary offer in exchange for a pound of Antonio's flesh, Bassanio accuses Shylock of being an "unfeeling man" (4.1.63). However, moments earlier, Shylock claims that the reason for his cruelty is no "More than a lodged hate and certain loathing / I bear Antonio..." (4.1.60-1). Is Shylock really the man that Bassanio's accuses him of being? Does he act simply out of unmitigated cruelty? Or is Bassanio's accusation meant to be ironic, its location a mere three lines after Shylock's feeling-wrought hatred for Antonio highlighting the inability of other characters in the play to understand the complexity of the thing driving Shylock?
ReplyDelete-Elizabeth Schink
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 Moore