For Wednesday's
class, read AT LEAST ONE of the following essays in the back of our Norton
edition of The Merchant of
Venice, and respond to TWO of the questions that follow. This will
form the basis of our discussion on Friday.
The essays--read at least ONE of the following:
The essays--read at least ONE of the following:
- Cohen, “Shylock and the Idea of the Jew” (193)
- Shapiro, “Circumcision and the Pound of Flesh”
(226)
- Sinfield, “How to Read The Merchant of
Venice Without Being Heterosexist” (270)
- Desai, “Mislike Me Not For My Complexion”: Whose Mislike? Portia’s? Shakespeare’s? Or That of His Age?” (304)
1. What "problem" is the author responding to in the play? That is, how is his/her essay trying to address a specific issue that needs to be resolved in staging The Merchant of Venice that would help modern audiences "get" Shakespeare's intention? What makes this issue so problematic?
2. Do you think this essay offers a more historical or a theoretical approach to Shakespeare? In other words, do you feel that the author offers a more "back to the text" approach in understanding how to reach Shakespeare's intentions, or is the author trying to use modern theoretical approaches/influences to "resurrect" the play? What makes you think this, and how successful do you feel this approach is? Be specific.
3. Do you feel like the essay would agree with Radford's (or Pacino’s) interpretation of The Merchant of Venice/Shylock? Could we imagine that Radford had read this essay before filming his version--does the essay illuminate his version in particular? Or conversely, do you think Radford should have read this essay before film his version? What might have changed or been improved? Or, perhaps, what advice did Radford wisely ignore? Again, be specific and point to examples in the essay and film.
4. How does the essay help you understand or appreciate The Merchant of Venice in a new light? What ideas does the essay reveal that you either didn't consider before, or didn't 'see' from this perspective? Be specific and reference a particular scene, moment, or character that connects to ideas in the essay.
Melissa Williams
ReplyDeleteDr. J. Grasso
Shakespeare
February 18, 2014
1. Most modern readers have a fear of homophobia, and thus have a problem with presenting it. So, in order to get people over their fear of homophobia within Shakespeare’s plays. “The Merchant of Venice makes best sense if we regard Antonio in love with Bassanio (270).” Sinfield goes on to talk about how Antonio was willing to sacrifice himself in a terrifying bond in order to save Bassanio, and continues speaking on and on about how he prefers his company. Sinfield even brings up how Portia mentions that she knows that Bassanio has slept around and agrees to not deny her husband that right (280).
2. Sinfield uses both the theoretical and the historical to back up his claims. In the start of his essay, he begins with showing how the dialogue within Shakespeare points to Antonio being clearly in love with Bassanio and if one takes that for granted then the entire play makes more sense. Later, he begins to bring up the historical ideas about homosexuality, “Shakespeare may speak with force to gay men and lesbians, simply because he didn’t think he had to sort out sexuality in modern terms (284).”
Yes, this is an important essay since it reminds us that the terms "hereo/homosexual" did not exist in Shakespeare's time. People did not think of themselves in this way. Obviously, they (largely) followed the Bible's injunction against sodomy and most avoided the deed, but many men openly loved or had passionate relationships with other men which were not sexual (at least, not in that way). So what Shakespeare is showing us would not be seen as outrageous; seeing a woman on stage would be much more upsetting. Yet a comedy restores the traditional balance, so Antonio must yield Bassanio to Portia, and Portia must make sure that Antonio realizes his loss of power. This echoes much of the drama in the Sonnets, which brings up the interesting possibility of Portia being a kind of "Dark Lady" as found in the Sonnets. If nothing else, the play--like the Sonnets--shows a real same sex love as impossible in that society, since it must remain idealized. And we know what this play, and Shakespeare himself, thinks about idealized love.
ReplyDelete1. The problem that Sinfield is addressing in this play is the relationship between Antonio and Bassanio. This essay implies there is definitely more going on between them than just close friendship. This essay also points out that during this time period, such relationships were not a big deal because most of the time it was expected in friendships between males. Also, this essay briefly addresses other "problems" that are overlooked, such as, oppression trafficking. This essay suggests The Merchant of Venice deals issues other than homosexuality, For instance, Sinfield talks about Portia's oppression with hetero-patriarchy and goes on to make the statement that The Merchant of Venice is a place to address all of these issues.
ReplyDelete4. I think this essay mainly helped me to consider all of the different types of oppression that was shown in the play and not just Shylock. For instance, I knew from the reading and discussion that Portia's father was pretty much controlling her marriage. However, she is still able to manipulate and get what she wants. Anyway, I never really paid much attention to the oppression she received being a woman. Also, as stated in my earlier post, this essay helped me to see The Merchant of Venice as dealing with many "problems," not just homosexuality.
Courtney White
1. The essay I read was "Circumcision and the 'Pound of Flesh'". The author considers the changing words and references to what flesh Shylock intends to cut from Antonio. No really, what is it? he asks. The answer: "flesh" once used to refer solely to the male parts. It eventually got bowdlerized into flesh from around the heart area, in the play. In the essay, a reference is made to a story/incident where "Antonio" was a Jew, and "Shylock" a Christian, and the POPE said that if the "Shylock" cut more than was specified, he would die. In different Bible verses, it refers to circumcision as a physical and/or spiritual act, and that if one were "uncircumcised" then their mark as a Jew or Christian would be reversed. So with the language, Shakespeare was referring to this as a way to foreshadow Shylock's conversion. The real issue at stake was Shylock's conversion at court. It's problematic because a modern audience might not understand the significance (at least to Shakespeare's original audience) of the insistence on letter of the law, the pound of flesh, and why Shylock "had" to be converted in the first place--in fact, I would wager that said Biblical passages were a part of their mental justification.
ReplyDelete4. The essay only underscores the tragedy. In the story referenced, I could have believed that actual Christian mercy could have been employed toward the Jew (who was the victim) by the ultimate earthly-spiritual authority by saving his life. But in a way, the "flesh" to "heart" change is almost a different symbol. The result of Shylock's "flesh" (his daughter) hurt his "heart" (emotions), so he tried to hurt others' "hearts" by destroying Antonio's "flesh" (moved from below the belt to chest-height). But when he does that, another reversal happens: in trying to "circumcise" Antonio, he himself became "uncircumcised" to his faith. Only it takes the emotionality of Jessica abandoning Shylock and replaces it with that of the court scene, and making it even more literal than I first took it.
Jessie Randall
1. The problem that Cohen discusses is the idea that The Merchant of Venice is anti-Semitic. The film version shows Shylock as a wounded, but no less human, Jew who wants revenge for the suffering that Antonio, and the others, have forced upon him. Pacino's play on Shylock reveals Shylock to a character worth at least being sympathetic towards, if not rooting for. Pacino's Shylock is a character who has had to suffer many accusations, threats, and violence due to him being a Jew and a money lender, yet in spite of that is no different that anyone else. Cohen argues that Shylock is a villain up to the end, until after he is defeated, where he finally shows humanity and reveals himself to be worth sympathizing for. Staging this play is problematic in that it's easy to see both ways in which the play is anti-Semitic and non-anti-Semitic. On one hand it's easy to understand someone's thirst for revenge, but on the other it's likewise easy to see how Shylock's thirst for blood cements him as a villain.
ReplyDelete4. Cohen's essay showed to me how The Merchant of Venice could be anti-Semitic. Specifically, Cohen's look at Launcelot's use of the word 'devil,' as well as the idea that Shylock was villainous up until the end, forces me to look at the play more closely to try and understand who Shylock really was, and how the play might be/is anti-Semitic. One of the most interesting ideas that Cohen brings up is the idea that Shakespeare thought that the Jews were no different from others, yet still staged the play to have Shylock be a negative representation of the Jews as a whole in order to manipulate the audience and have the play be somewhat of a shock, or to make it seem more interesting. That idea puts the play in an entire new light as it forces the reader to question Shakespeare's motives when he wrote the play. I personally viewed Shylock as a flawed hero who, because of Antonio, finally broke and decided he had had enough and wanted true revenge. Cohen's breakdown of how many times the word 'Jew' or similar words were used made me look back on the play and think more about the repetition or use of words and how that affects the play and the meaning of the play.
- Casey Fowler
Great reading of the essay; it quite clearly IS anti-Semitic, at least in the sense that it stages a Jew who acts somewhat conventionally and is suitably punished for his audience. And yet, we get so much more, so much that is frankly unnecessary than we get in, say, Marlowe's The Jew of Malta. Cohen is dismissive of these moments, but his close reading of the play shows us that everything is ultimately important. As I said in class, I disagree that he acts as a monster throughout the play, only to earn our sympathy at the end. Can't we say the same about Antonio? Doesn't he have an implacable hatred toward Shylock throughout the play--even saying that he will likely spit on him again in the street? I think Shylock is almost more a creature of Venice than Jew, someone who has learned to be ruthless in business, all the more so because he's discriminated against. Remember, his chief grievance against Antonio is his competition--he lends out money without interest. This is personal, but less in a Jew vs. Christian way as a capitalist vs. capitalist way.
Delete1) Antonio and Bassanio's love is the problem this essay presents. I read this essay as taking the stance that Shakespeare wrote this play to show how uncomfortable audiences and people at the time are towards male lovers. Portia presents their love as so ridiculous in act V during the court room scene that she invites Antonio over. She is like "Ohh I have nothing to worry about, men could never be in romantic love, come on over for a sleep over!" This is problematic as the reader looses some understanding of their motives without understanding they are in love. Even a modern audience could deny it is possible, but they wouldn't understand Shakespeare uses Portia to point out the ridiculousness in this denial. So we are safe. *sarcasm*
ReplyDelete4) This is embarrassing and I'd rather email you, but I'll post. Until our talk on Friday in class, I didn't notice the undertones of their relationship. This essay made it jump off the page and hit me in the face. I watched scene V over again on YouTube and I don't feel they played it up as strong as I read it. Maybe that's for a modern audience that can only handle so much. However, the essay makes the point that it was even worse back then. Grasso mentioned earlier homosexuals were fine as long as they didn't have sex. Did they believe that really didn't happen? It made me laugh out loud when they present Portia as such a bitch because she's married to a gay man. That makes sense! Truly a different reading with this love triangle in mind.
Never be embarrassed--I didn't see much of what I see now on a first read. There's too much TO read to get everything, or even see 50% of the whole. I think the first scene with Antonio and Bassanio is important, since it (a) is in verse, and (b) uses very flowery language with metaphors that hint at a deeper relationship--or the desire to have one. I think Antonio (as the essay suggests) loves more than Bassanio, but Bassanio later feels incredible guilt for using such a "good man" and getting him (almost) executed. Quite simply, he knows Antonio much more than Portia, so he obviously loves him more. I think it's clear they haven't had intimate relations yet, but this was always a possibility...as Portia perhaps knew and was careful to nip in the bud. Remember, though, the fun of taking a Shakespeare class is seeing new things--if the class only confirmed what you knew, that would only be so fun. I learn new things whenever I teach Shakespeare, not only from re-reading it, but from hearing what you guys have to say about it. I never leave a class having said exactly what I intended going in. That's what keeps reading--and teaching--so enjoyable.
Delete1. Derek Cohen, in Shylock and the Idea of the Jew, brings up the problem of the anti-Semantic Shakespeare. He highlights the “anti” Jewish remarks in the play. Cohen is trying to address the issue of the Jews being portrayed in a negative light through Shylock. He writes about how Shylock needs to be portrayed in a less devilish way. He highlights how Shylock is portrayed as the devil, and how he portrays the stereotypes of Jews. Cohen also talks about how Shakespeare had probably never even met a Jew in his life, and therefore probably knew nothing about Jews or their culture. Cohen says that since Shakespeare never really knew any Jews he cannot properly portray a Jew. Cohen really addresses how the major problem in the play is the portrayal of the Jew, and the humiliation he has to go through. I think that Shylock doesn’t really need to be changed for a modern audience to get his character to be understood by modern audiences, but Cohen I’m sure disagrees. With the different things that he talks about I feel that maybe he wants Shylock to be acted out in much a similar way as the Christians, and to not be referred to as a Jew, but instead as his formal name Shylock. He talks about how not calling him by his name, especially in the court room versus Antonio demeans him and dehumanizes him. I think that if he were elevated in that way it would alter the meaning of the play, it would also take away from the “does a Jew not have eyes” speech. I think that demeaning Shylock is necessary so that we can feel pity for him, allowing us to realize how ridiculous discrimination truly is.
ReplyDelete4. The way that Derek Cohen is constantly finding different aspects of the play that are against Jews or show them stereotypically, that made me see those aspects, that before I didn’t notice all of them. But because he finds so much, some of them I find to be twisted in meaning so that he can make his point. So that made me see the play in yet another light, in that some people will twist the meaning of its lines in order show that Shakespeare was an anti-Semitic. For example he gets the lines “Thou call’dst me a dog, before thou hadst a cause, /But since I am a dog, beware my fangs.” I understood that Shylock was sarcastically referring to himself as a dog, Cohen thinks that he is admitting to being a dog and that “the play defines Christianity as synonymous with tolerance and kindness and forgiveness, it defines Jewishness in opposite terms.” I see his point but I don’t think that was Shakespeare’s point.
-Jasmine Q
This is a good reading/critique of this essay. It's a fine essay, but I think Cohen is taking Shylock personally and assumes that Shakespeare lumped all Jews together as evil. Thus, whenever we see Shylock being sympathetic, we're "reading it wrong," since he obviously meant to make fun of him--or to show Shylock as dissembling. What we get is far more complex, a somewhat anti-Semitic play written by a very tolerant playwright; he could subvert expectations by ultimately, at the end, conforming to them. But it's important to realize that many people continue to deny Shylock any humanity and to see Shakespeare as a cartoonist of the most intolerant kind (but hey, they said the same about Spiegelman and Maus!).
Delete2)
ReplyDeleteI think that perhaps Sinfield's essay could be both historical and yet very current as well. I'm a firm believer in "there's nothing new under the sun." I don't think homosexuality is more prevalent or "popular" today than it has ever been before, I just think we have more resources which make us more aware of the subject. Homosexuality is certainly not a trend, and I think Sinfield addresses this. Shakespeare, in this interpretation, very well portrays the relationship between Antonio and Bassanio as something that is commonly accepted in this time period. Through Antonio's repeated promises to Bassanio and Bassanio's passionate declarations of love, we can see the intensity of the relationship. Perhaps the interpretation of the homosexual relationship existing whatsoever is theoretical, but the historical pretext is there as well.
4)
I was actually really stoked when I read this essay. I had felt the homosexual under-tones in Bassanio and Antonio's relationship, and I was glad to see someone else had seen it too. Sinfield's essay was well-thought out and brought many more examples as evidence than I had seen myself. It also really shone a light on Portia's attitude problem.
Yes, good points; this shows that what modern readers see isn't always an "adding on" or "making it too modern." Often, what we see was put there by Shakespeare for anyone to find, but hundreds of years of tradition have wiped away--particularly throughout the Victorian era, which hid from such unthinkable ideas and wanted a tame, safe Shakespeare. If we buy his argument, we understand that sometimes the most radical ideas are actually very orthodox historically !
Delete4. I read Sinfield's essay, and he pits Antonio against Portia in a battle for Bassanio's love. Antonio lays everything on the line to hold onto Bassanio while Portia is portrayed a the ultimate manipulator. She's very aware of her actions and what's going on from the casket's to Antonio's love to the ring situation. She exercises control and wants to put Antonio in his place. Sinfield makes Portia out to be conniving and paints her in a more negative light. Her independence is now a bad thing. He also talks about how 'traffic in boys occurs quite casually in The Merchant' which I had not considered. It seems kind of out there but okay. Sinfield states as an example how Launcelot is traded from Shylock's care to Bassanio's. One of his other examples is how Jessica has to dress as a man and then is immediately used as a torchbearer for Lorenzo. So it's really about the traffic of boys and how common and nothing unusual. And that it somehow effects the love triangle of Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia.
ReplyDelete3. I think for the most part Sinfield would be okay with the Radford film. Even without words, there are cues that Antonio and Bassanio have more than just platonic feelings for each other like when Antonio is under duress in the courtroom. Portia for obvious reasons has some beef with it too.I think he'd feel like there weren't quite enough women dressing as men to be peddled to help exemplify the main love story of Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia. Outside of Shylock's great speeches and the little drama of Jessica's, Radford does focus on the relationship of those three and how they play on each other. Unlike the play, it's obvious who has won Bassanio because Portia takes him to their bedroom I believe while Antonio is left in the parlor all by his lonesome at the end of the movie.
Kim McCreery