[at left: Patrick Stewart as Shylock in the 2011 RSC production of The Merchant of Venice; click here for more photos and links: http://www.rsc.org.uk/explore/shakespeare/plays/the-merchant-of-venice/rupert-goold-production-2011.aspx
Answer TWO of the
following...
1. The Merchant of
Venice is one of Shakespeare’s most musical plays, with a preponderance of
verse and rhymes—especially rhyming couplets.
This occurs most notably in Belmont, especially in Act 3, Scene 2,
between Bassanio and Portia. What do
you make of all the rhymes and the self-consciously musical verse? How does this affect how we read/hear the
play and understand the characters and their relationships?
2. Discuss your reading of
Portia as she appears both in the previous acts and in Act 3. Is she the true ‘hero’ of the play, able to
manipulate men and choose her own destiny?
Or is she witty but ineffectual, desperate to find a good husband and
enslaved by her father’s curse? Are we
supposed to relate to her/like her? Do
we laugh at her suitors with her, or does this make her appear sour and
imperious?
3. I suggested on Monday
that there might be more than one Shylock in this play, which the character
prompts—both Shylock and “Jew”—seem to suggest. How do you read this, specifically in light of Shylock’s famous
speech in Act 3, Scene 1? Is this Shylock
consistent with the Shylock we see elsewhere in the play, and particularly in
Act 3, Scene 3, where he appears as “Jew” throughout? Or is Shakespeare simply giving us a complex character who (like
many of us) is simply more than the sum of his parts?
4. Act 3, Scene 5 is a
very odd, brief scene, as it gives center stage to three minor characters:
Lancelot, Jessica, and Lorenzo. What is
the gist of this scene, particularly as it relates to Jessica and her position
in the Christian world? Do we believe
the words of Lancelot, as the play’s ‘fool’?
Also note that the lovers switch from prose to verse in this scene; how
do you understand this subtle shift of language?
1. Belmont seems to be this kind of magical “other” place with few problems, fantastical circumstances, and musical language. I think the conversations between Portia and Bassanio are kind of like a duet. They play off of each other, each taking a cue from the others language choice. This is readily apparent in the “upon the rack” conversation, where Portia picks up Bassanio’s metaphor and runs with it.
ReplyDeleteI think the language between Portia and Bassanio can be interpreted in two ways. Either it serves to illustrate their compatibility, thereby reinforcing the fairytale like quality of Belmont. Or, it is meant to be satirical—a mirror of Antonio’s “every man must play his part” line in Act One. Portia is playing the part of a dutiful wife and Bassanio the wooing hero.
2. Personally, I do find Portia to be the hero of the play. Although she chooses to give up much of her power to Bassanio after their marriage—which was English, not Venetian law—she reestablishes her dominance through her deception of Bassanio in later acts. She is a woman not afraid to test her husband’s “love” for her by demanding and tricking him. She is also confident enough to walk into a world dominated by men—the courtroom—and outwit and out orate them all.
I also think her portrayal says something about Shakespeare himself. If the cross dressing women of the time were considered unnatural and sluttish, then what is Shakespeare trying to say by having such an exalted character—a woman finer than fine can express—take on the guise of a man? Perhaps Portia’s declaration about Bassanio being her king doesn't hold as much water as we think.
Good points...this is another play about acting, particularly for Portia, who has unlimited power in Belmont but is forced to get married and lose it. Like Elizabeth I, she wants to remain queen, and perhaps the entire play is her crafty way to get the right man (the man she loves), but control him in such a way that she remains supreme. The ring ploy is a clever strategy that she must have had in mind from the beginning--particularly when she realizes how devoted he is to Antonio. And yes, if she is the fairest of the fair (a fairy tale princess, really) the fact that she can so easily pass for a man--and a scholar, at that!--goes even further than Rosalind in debunking the gender divide. I think she is enormously crafty in her dealings with the various suitors, and these scenes could be played with her more in control than it might seem from the text.
Delete3. In Act 3 Scene 1, he seems more of a person who has been persecuted by the people around him. He's bitter, he's angry, he's disappointed--not only in his daughter for running away from him for her marriage to someone of a different religion, but with men who he knew, probably saw as somewhat friendly until now, when he figures that they deliberately set him up for Jessica's departure by not telling him anything they might have known, including that she would run in the first place. His daughter seemingly selling his wife's ring for a monkey cements his feelings of betrayal from her--taking what is sacred to him and defiling it for something petty. Further, Antonio will not meet him on the street, and if he did, wouldn't look him in the eye. Further, Salerio and Solanio insult him TO HIS FACE about the bond between him and his daughter, implying she isn't his child, that her mother his wife was unfaithful, and further, mock him in a sexual sense as well. He works himself into a rage over all these slights, as would many people capable of holding a grudge who have had to suffer ill-treatment for a long time. In the latter scene, Antonio seems ready to make an apology for whatever he has done, including stealing business from him. But Shylock's wrath has taken such hold on him he won't listen to anything which might resemble compromise with him, because everything is too much. He is characterized as "Jew," I think, as a way of distancing the audience from him, possibly even playing to stereotypes to make him less likable. He is more than one or another aspect of his personality; it's just different points of the play bring them out over each other.
ReplyDeleteJessie Randall
4. Lancelot questions Jessica's legitimacy as Shylock's daughter. As a Jew, to a Christian of the time he and she would both be damned as Christ-killers. People would question her conversion, possibly for the rest of her life. But if her mother had been unfaithful to Shylock, the sins of the mother would make her damned as well, for Lancelot plays upon the Bible passages which say the children whose parents sin will have their parents' sins visited upon them. Then he says that Jessica's husband Lorenzo is an idiot in a secular sense for devaluing business in the meat market for having another mouth that can eat pork now. This upsets her greatly; she gave up a great deal to be with Lorenzo, and her erstwhile friend in her father's house is demeaning everything she ever strived for. Also, the idea that her family could have ever been disunited so before her birth hurts her in as many ways as it would Shylock himself. Lorenzo sees them and warns Lancelot not to do anything fishy, because he would have cause for suspecting them of adultery. He then orders Lancelot to do his job, and asks Jessica for her opinions on everything. Despite her conversion and her love, she is uncomfortable, and possibly feels that to say anything lesser of her master and his lady would be demeaning and that Lorenzo might throw her out for it. Notice how she wants to praise him while her stomach is empty--she doesn't want to drink too much and possibly allow her mouth to say things which she would normally have control over. Lancelot might be poking fun, but as jests, as far as Jessica is concerned, he crosses the line. While the men may say they have accepted Jessica as their new Christian equal, she has her doubts and is on guard--if Lorenzo sees fit to divorce her, she can't go back to her father, to her people, because as far as either is concerned, she's a traitor and dead in a legal and religious sense. She will have to find a way on her own, and she is not equipped in a Christian world because she didn't grow up as one--a wrong word or move and everyone will turn on her, convert or not.
ReplyDeleteJessie Randall
Excellent reading here: Jessica realizes how tenuous her position in Belmont is among Christians, where even her husband teases her with infidelity with a fool (with the nasty suggestion that a girl who ran away from her father will run away again--which is exactly what another Venetian, the father of Desdesmona, tells Othello when she runs away with him). It also carries the implication that she is 'low', and therefore more suitable for Lancelot than for himself. Either way, she wants some proof that he is constant, and this is a thread that will be picked up in Act V.
DeleteMelissa Williams
ReplyDeleteDr. Grasso
Shakespeare
February 11, 2014
3. There is only one Shylock throughout the entire play, and he acts the same throughout the entire play whether he is called Jew or by name. Going back to scene 1 of Act 3, we can see Shylock acting just as violent and unreasonable as he does in scene 3 when asked what good would a pound of Antonio’s flesh do. “To bait fish withal. If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath both disgraced me and hind’red me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies, and what’s his reason? I am a Jew (37).” Whenever later on the character simply called ‘Jew’ speaks, we can see the same exact thing that Shylock forshadowed in the earlier text come out of his mouth again. “I’ll have my bond: Speak not against my bond. I have sworn an oath that I will have my bond. Thou call’dst me a dog before thou hadst a cause, But since I am a dong, beware my fangs (48).” Basically, Shakespeare wants to mock the Jews more by saying that they are violent beyond all reason. According to him, once they have been provoked, there is nothing that can stop them from slaughtering an innocent man.
4. Here, we see the group making fun of Jessica’s recent conversion to Christianity. They start off with how she is lucky not to be damned because of her father’s heritage and religion because she married a Christian man and converted. They laugh at how Christians eat pigs when to a Jew that is taboo, and that they wonder what would happen should the price of pork go up since they are all now pork eaters.
Good points, but I think you're reading this play with too much historical bias. We can't assume that Shakespeare's characters are Shakespeare, especially character as morally suspect as Solanio and Salerio. I don't think Shakespeare is mocking Jews at all, especially given that Shylock has the most powerful and memorable lines in the play, and clearly outshines the pitiful attempts of these two Venetians to mock him in this scene. I think in many ways Shylock is consistent, but there is a slight dissonance in his characterization; I believe the "Jew"/Shylock tags suggest revisions that Shakespeare made as he wrote/staged the play; in some scenes, Shylock is more stereotypical (and yet, still pretty powerful), while in others he is capable of profound poetry and gravitas. When reading Shakespeare in particular, we have to remember that he gives us so many points of view, that we can never say "oh, he thinks this..." he would never make it so easy for us.
DeletePortia represents the wanted woman, but she is not represented as vain in my opinion. If she were vain she wouldn’t speak prose to Nerissa nor would she make fun of her suitors. She doesn’t seem to like all the attention she is getting. She wants men’s attention for different reasons, not for her wealth or beauty. When she calls Bassanio Hercules I get a little chuckle. It’s as if she is sarcastically making up lines that would be in some Greek tragedy where she is playing a convention and silently laughing or scoffing in her head. Her and Nerissa rolling their eyes at one another. There is no hero really more like abstract justice that is purely situational.
ReplyDeleteI am convinced that Launcelot is crushing on Jessica. Launcelot has grown up with Jessica probably and works for her father. You can tell that he is concerned for her. They speak prose until Launcelot leaves then Lorenzo and Jessica speak verse together. I think Lorenzo is threatened, surprisingly, by the clown and makes insulting comments to mock him. Jumping back to Act II Launcelot calls Jessica, “Most beautiful pagan, most sweet Jew. These foolish drops do something drown my manly spirit. Adieu!” He is crying to her, tired of being the neutral stander by. It sucks to be the middle man, and not have your opinion noted.
-Felicia D.
Good point--her invocation of Greek legend is a way of (a) painting Belmont in a mythical light and (b) staging her own kind of play for the actors, of which Bassanio is an unwitting participant. There is nothing very Herculean about him, though she lets him play the role of Prince Charming while it serves her. I like how much humor/satire you find here, especially the knowing role that Portia and Nerissa take regarding the men (especially when Nerissa decides to duplicate Portia's feat in Act V with the ring--absurd, but it works!).
Delete2.) I don’t think she is sour and imperious, or desperate and enslaved. I think she is definitely manipulative and witty. She is not an openly overwhelming manipulative character, instead she uses her wit to manipulate and work her way through every loop whole possible. I think the play presents her as a “desperate” and “enslaved” character, who is just kind of tied down by her father’s craziness. You find out as the play continues however, that she is not tied down and that she found a way around everything through her wit manipulating everybody like chess pieces. I don’t find her to be a relatable character, but the reader definitely enjoys her. Even though she is presented as helpless, and you learn that in fact she’s in charge, you do laugh with her. When she jokes about the suitors you find humor in what she says, not pity.
ReplyDelete3.) I didn’t see it as two Shylocks. I didn’t see one man with a split personality but instead what I saw was one man treated two different ways by others. When referred to as a Jew in the paly he is treated in the way that Jews were treated, and he speaks in a stereotypically Jewish way (but because they are treating him like a stereotypical Jew). However, when referred to as Shylock they are treating him as another person, not just another Jew. When Shylock you see human qualities that Jews “didn’t have”. Shylock shows emotions, sadness, anger, resentment. I think Shakespeare did this to show that behind the Jew is a human. Shylock is a Jew and he is human. Thus Jews are humans.
-Jasmine Quiñónez
I like this idea: she's not relatable, but she is enjoyable. Few women of her time were probably like her, though I imagine more are--or can be--today. She realizes the myths that men want to believe, she indulges them, without losing her own agency. Her father thought he had her under his thumb, but the casket test is pretty easy for her to arrange (if we believe she does), and Bassanio easier still. She is a fun character, and like Rosalind, wants the audience to laugh along. The laughter stops in Act IV, and yet, and we are torn: should Shylock win and get justice, or should Portia defeat him (like she defeats all men)? It's a much more complex situation than we find in As You Like It.
Delete2. I personally think Portia is a genius. I couldn’t help but think that she was manipulating all of the people around her to achieve what she wanted. Compared to other manipulating females she is nowhere near being cruel and evil about her ways. She is manipulating for love and to set up her own destiny and not just ride out the one her father planed for her. I do feel that Portia is the hero of the play for she is a strong confident woman. She is able to stand up to her husband and walk into a courtroom disguised as a man which was a very gutsy move on her part. People are supposed to like Portia. What’s not to like? She is a very feisty and beautiful leading lady of the play.
ReplyDelete3. I did not think that there is more than one Shylock in the play. Shylock and the “Jew” are the same person. Shylock definitely acts differently throughout the play but there is reason behind that. As cliché as it may sound the saying “treat others how you want to be treated” is present to me. Shylock speaks and acts in regards to how he is treated. When he is being spat on and treated as a stereotypical Jew then it is pretty obvious that he is going to act out as such. Shylock shows a completely different personality when he is treated like a normal person. He can relate to everyone once his wall of protection from society is torn down. I do feel that Shakespeare was trying to put a character out there that at first appeared to be unimportant but as the play progressed the audience can see that Shylock really is a complex character and is more than he seems.
-Kayci Snider
I agree that Portia is powerful and loveable; we're supposed to like her, admire her, and almost forget about Shylock when she walks into the room. However, she can't quite upstage him as Rosalind can upstage and defeat Jaques. She does beat him, but his defeat turns Shylock into an even more riveting and tragic character. For this reason, he has to be shuffled away and the play has to return to Belmont to affect some kind of 'comic' ending. But even here, she's in rare form, and manipulates the hell out of the poor men--especially Bassanio, who is 'tamed' much as Petruchio tames Kate in The Taming of the Shrew. He'll never give away any more rings in his day!
Delete3. I think when Shakespeare is referring to the "Jew," he is not just referring to Shylock, but to the people and the nation. Shylock is the epitome of the "Jew," and demonstrates perfectly the stereotypes and prejudices against the race. Shylock brings these prejudices out into the open and embraces them, especially with his speech about being the same as the rest of them. "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"
ReplyDelete1. I agree with ArkhamA. Belmont does seem to be a very insular idea.
Two things: one, I don't know who you are--please include your name with your response. And two, try to offer more developed responses: one sentence doesn't really show me engagement with the text, since you're just piggybacking off Charlynn's ideas. Start with that, but expand it to your own ideas--even if you just do a close reading of part of the text that illustrates this. Please edit this response or do another one to make this up.
Delete2. In the beginning she seems helpless thanks to her father’s casket test crap in choosing a suitor. Portia struggles to decide whether or not to defy her father’s wishes to achieve marrying the one that she loves but decides against it unless her positioning and the music lyrics are what truly gave it away. In the end though Portia shows her wit and that she is not afraid to stand up for what she believes in. She asserts power and demands respect both as a woman and as she did pretending to be a man in the court in regards to Shylock. Through the scenes where the suitors were calling on her and attempting her father’s test her commentary with Nerissa was comic and I did laugh with her and hoped that the three unworthy suitors would not choose right as I am sure with her even. I even imagined her pleading with God, “Please, no not this one”. I am curious as to why the three wrong suitors had to be so, “obviously wrong” for her? Why not make them seem suitable and have her sigh at their inability to choose the right damned casket and storm off in defiance at a father’s death bed will. Perhaps that would of made it less a comedy in Shakespeare’s day but I think if acted out right it would be very comical (but it might also bring a glimmer of tragedy to Belmont which is clearly NOT Shakespeare’s intentions). I think we are supposed to relate to her and like her the curse of her father’s wishes draws us to her and her absolute genius throughout the end of the play damn near demand us to like her even respect her especially for her wit and courage.
ReplyDelete3. I think Shylock is bitter throughout the movie—one character—one Shylock. When he is referred to as the Jew I think he lets his true self show because it makes his blood boil. When referred to as Shylock he plays it was as if they were at least seeing him as another person an individual rather than an entire race scorned for his beliefs. In the moments that he is referred to as Shylock I think he is putting on his business or game face almost saying, “Okay while you’re willing I will play this game”. Once they cry Jew, spit on him, disgrace him, or his people he simply slips into that role (when I think of this I imagine a peace offering Native American’s stature until he is called a savage). His famous speech in Act 3, Scene 1 notice he is not only speaking for himself or he would have used “I” instead he uses “we” he is speaking for ALL Jews not just himself, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" I think Shakespeare is giving us a complex character in Shylock one that is angry, bitter, and eager to seek revenge through justice if possible. I think he was lying in wait for Antonio to strike a deal or borrow from him so that he could readily agree and humbly (cough cough) agree to loan it to him with no fee other than a pound of flesh insinuating we both know you’re good for it (no worries) only to sabotage (I secretly think that Shylock was responsible for Antonio’s at sea losses or delays in order to demand his bond.) Antonio later and seek revenge. Look to your bond!
~Lisa Edge~
2. In regards to Portia, I think that she manipulates situations, but not necessarily people. It is clear that she didn't like that restrictions her father had placed on her. However, she did seem to use the situation in order to bring in a suitor that she was at least interested in. Initially, she dressed up like a man in order to help Antonio on Bassanio's behalf. She didn't use it as an opportunity to test her husband, until Bassanio stated that his life and Portia were not worth the cost of Antonio's life. I think that in many ways she mocks the situation that she has been placed in, and in turn the audience is both moved and amused by her situation. In many ways, she is the realest person within the play. She is neither blinded by hate, nor motivated by intense revenge. She seems to be the most rational character in the play. She has emotions, but she doesn't let them blind her. I think that she is a very enjoyable character, because she has a clear concept of who she is and what she wants. I would not call her the hero of the play, but the way in which she shapes her environment leads to what most would consider a satisfying conclusion.
ReplyDelete3. In my opinion, there are two personas of Shylock. In the beginning of the play, He is more merciful, and he does have some respect for Christians. However, losing Jessica left him very bitter and angry. I think that losing her daughter did make him realize that he would never be their equals. I highly doubt that Antonio's friends really cared for Jessica. It was more of a realization that she was a possession that they could take from him. Shylock obviously recognizes this, and places all of his anger onto Antonio. Antonio already signed the bond, and Shylock had him in a situation to legally punish him. It is disturbing to see this man, who is someone to respect at the beginning of the play, become so bloodthirsty. While understandable, it is unsettling. He seems like Antonio, in the fact that he becomes so focused on his hatred that he cannot see the good in the man, that might justify some leniency.
-Cayla O.
2- Portia is one of my favorite characters because she makes me think. I enjoy characters you can't fit in a box, and this play starkly contrasts the last one in that aspect. At my first reaction to the film, I hated Portia. I was devastated at what I thought was her cruelty towards Shylock. However, after reading, I see more levels to her. She is a manipulator. In her situations, that is awesome for her. She may come off as a bitch, but she's taking care of business and proving herself against all odds. She is a realist. She handles the situation with her father based on the hand she is dealt. She didn't plot, she fixed her helpin'. She deals in the courtroom based off what's been handed to her right then. Yes, she had the law and loopholes figured out, but her anger came from the moment. She works quick on her toes and gets what she can out of the men's world she's thrown into. I don't think of her as a hero, but I think she moves the play along greatly. She isn't a character that I think was intended to relate to the audience. She is a character that we understand however. I feel for her. I personally laugh with her and enjoy her holding her own in the dog eat dog world she's been placed in.
ReplyDelete3- I don't believe there are two Shylocks. I believe, like you said, he is more than the sum of his parts. He is a person. He treats others like a mirror. He is first to say what is fair is fair. He looks for an eye for an eye. In scenes he is "jew", he is treated like a dog. We see what Dr. Nicholson-Weir's Prezi showed us. We can tell they weren't used to anything but the stereotypical jew. Shakespeare seems to use the scenes when he is "Shylock" to show that jews are people. Shylock's famous monolog directly states this. When he is treated like one of the guys or a respected individual, he can show as much of a normal side as Shakespeare was allowed to defend in front of the masses. He is the same person however.