This blog prompt is courtesy of our colleagues Bryson and Josh. They will serve as our blog moderators this week. Engage their prompt, and they surely will engage you.
In this weeks lecture we discussed one of William Shakespeare's famous 16th century plays titled The Merchant of Venice. Dr Cleworth gave us a brief overview of this play on Tuesday and explained that it has been the subject of much debate since it was written. Many have argued that the play was originally written in order to promote antisemitic views and stereotypes; however, others have argued that the play was written in order to shed light on the discrimination many Jewish people faced during Shakespeare's time.
For this blog prompt we would like you to consider multiple factors of The Merchant of Venice in order to assess whether or not this play was originally intended to be antisemitic. Is it? Once you have considered this question we would like you to tie your explanation into one or more of the following questions:
Please support your answers with evidence from the play; this includes either direct quotations or paraphrased material. Make sure to cite which line and act you got your evidence from.
In this weeks lecture we discussed one of William Shakespeare's famous 16th century plays titled The Merchant of Venice. Dr Cleworth gave us a brief overview of this play on Tuesday and explained that it has been the subject of much debate since it was written. Many have argued that the play was originally written in order to promote antisemitic views and stereotypes; however, others have argued that the play was written in order to shed light on the discrimination many Jewish people faced during Shakespeare's time.
For this blog prompt we would like you to consider multiple factors of The Merchant of Venice in order to assess whether or not this play was originally intended to be antisemitic. Is it? Once you have considered this question we would like you to tie your explanation into one or more of the following questions:
- Overall, are you satisfied with the resolution of the famous court scene? If you are not, what would you change? If you are, explain why the ending is just. Would you bring victory to Shylock instead of Antonio or would you keep the ending how it is?
- Do you think that Shylock was projecting his pain onto Antonio? Follow up this question by explaining if Shylock was justified in doing such.
- Are there situations in which revenge is justified? If you believe that there are, explain whether or not Shylock's situation was one of them. If you believe that there are not, explain what Shylock should have done instead and why.
Please support your answers with evidence from the play; this includes either direct quotations or paraphrased material. Make sure to cite which line and act you got your evidence from.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would like to commend Bryson and Josh for being our first blog moderators -- great job on this prompt!
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that this play was originally intended to be anti-semitic (or, directly promote anti-semitism). Rather, I side with the view that it was merely written to shed light on the discrimination Jewish people faced during the time of Shakespeare. One of the most notable examples of discrimination I found to cite comes from Act 3 Scene 1, when Shylock says, in part, “He hath disgraced me and/hindered 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.53-57). Throughout this passage, Shylock is just describing the hardships that Antonio had put him through. These hardships are, according to him, due to the fact that he is a Jew. Now that, in and of itself, by definition, is anti-semitic. However, Shylock does not just ‘take it’. He goes on, in lines 66 to 72, to say, “If a Jew wrong a Christian,/what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufference be by Christian/example? Why, revenge! The villainy you teach me I/will execute…” (III.i.66-71). I interpreted this section as Shylock’s justification for his yearning of revenge on Antonio, basically stating that since Antonio has discriminated against him, he will do the same. It shows Shylock ‘fighting back’, and to me, if the play was truly meant to promote anti-semitism, this would not be the case. In addition, the play does have instances where its characters use anti-semitic slurs, particularly in line 130 of Act 4 Scene 1, when Gratiano calls Shylock an “inexecrable dog” (IV.i.130). However, Shylock defends himself against this as well, by reminding Gratiano that in this trial, he has the law on his side (IV.i.144).
Regarding the resolution of the court scene, I was satisfied that Antonio received the victory. I say this because, though I can somewhat empathize with Shylock’s yearning to avenge Antonio for his discriminatory actions, I believe that Shylock went incredibly off the deep end. What particularly struck me about Shylock’s behavior during the court scene was when he did not obey Portia’s advice to have a surgeon beside Antonio, as depicted in lines 269-273 of Act 4 Scene 1. Portia says, “Have by some surgeon, Shylock, on your charge,/To stop his wounds, lest he do bleed to death” (IV.i.269-270). And the only thing Shylock can respond with is, “Is it so nominated in the bond?” (IV.i.271). This shows that he would rather let Antonio bleed to death than break from what the bond says he can do. In this moment, he has zero remorse or common decency (which is not surprising, but still worth noting), and just sticks to the bond. Later on, it becomes evident that he does not even really want to obey it. When Portia gives him further stipulations that he must not spill a drop of Antonio’s blood or else his land and goods will be confiscated (IV.i.323-325), he backs out of the situation entirely. Sure, he does not want to lose those things...but I saw it more as him wanting to severely harm Antonio (given his hatred for him). Therefore, I do not believe Shylock’s behavior merited the victory.
Overall, I do believe that revenge can be justified if it is for some major cause (e.g. severe mistreatment, the killing of a loved one, etc. etc.). That said, I would concede that Shylock’s revenge is justified. However, as alluded to in my response to the second question, I do not support the means in which he wanted to obtain that revenge. It goes back to what Dr. Cleworth told us in class about ambivalence; championing Shylock for his revenge, but also recognizing that violence is not the most ethical way to do it. If I had been in Shylock’s situation, I would have just taken the three thousand ducats. But then, the court scene would not have been as interesting.
I agree that this play was not intended to promote anti-semitism due to the fact that Shakespeare wrote Shylock's reasoning for his vengeful plot against Antonio. Of course it probably was dramatized for theatrical purposes, but there was more to it than just a Jewish Man taking his revenge just because he does not like Christians.
DeleteNohely, I totally agree that Shylock's yearning for revenge was much more complex than simply wanting to hurt Antonio because he is a Christian! I just watched the PBS documentary "Shakespeare Uncovered: The Merchant of Venice" (that our Knowledge Check 6.6 is based off of), and it gave me a much deeper sense of the many other issues Shylock was grappling with. Namely, I understood the conflict of his 'shaky' relationship with his daughter, Jessica, and how she was even dating a Christian man, much more than when I initially read this play. And so, Shylock had been deeply mistreated by Antonio, but on a larger scale, he also had to deal with mistreatment from society in general and his not-good relationship with his own daughter. These other two things, in conjunction with his and Antonio's bitter relationship, probably just sent him 'over the edge', and he may have felt a deeper sense of control in avenging Antonio.
DeleteHiya Lizzy, I agree that the play was not meant to be anti-semitic. I believe Shakespeare wrote Merchant of Venice as an observation of what he was seeing all around him at the time. I think the slurs he used in the play were examples of what he was seeing and hearing around him. I can agree that Shylock has taken his emotions to the extreme, but I also can understand what drove him to this point. I do not think that Shylock went without remorse in the court scene. I think he was so full of anger and pain that he truly believed that hurting Antonio would heal him of the trauma he's experienced by Antonio and other Christians. I agree with you that saving Antonio's life was a good victory, but Shylock still lost everything. In the sense that they took away his identity by forcing him to convert to Christianity.
DeleteLizzy, thank you for approaching our prompt with much enthusiasm and thought! This play is indeed one that promotes thought from multiple different angles and makes the audience themselves think about their own personal morals. For those who have faced the mistreatment like the Jews, they may feel possibly disappointed, that Shylock didn't have the chance to take anything from Anontio, not money nor gruesome end. Others may approach this play with the thought that Shylock had no right to take out all his frustrations on one man, simply because he treated him poorly more often than other Venetians did. The way the Shylock's story ends, although conclusive, still allows for room to debate and begs the question; did Shakespeare have a connection with a Jew, which caused him to write this play? Or did he simply do it to spite his rival, Christopher Marlowe? I believe these are other things to consider, especially when including the time this play was produced and if you do believe that the production was intended to display the mistreatment of Jews.
DeleteAryanna -- That is an interesting speculation (that the slurs in this play were ones that Shakespeare heard around him)! It would not seem too far-fetched. After watching the PBS documentary yesterday, I realize that my initial assessment of Shylock in the court scene may have been a bit harsh. He had been going through so many struggles (with his hatred for Antonio, situation with his daughter, etc.) that it makes sense how he would eventually 'snap'. The 'final moment' did catch me off-guard, though.
DeleteBryson -- Given the fact that there were not very many Jews around during Shakespeare's time (due to exile, etc.), I would venture to say the latter. Those are still very good questions to keep in mind, however. Thank you for your reply!
I completely agree Lizzy. I truly thought that during the court scene, Portia would have been able to convince him that what he was doing was wrong.
DeleteI’m not too well versed in Shakespeare’s writings, I’ve only read a handful of his plays. But I think of Shakespeare as the type of writer to not want to convince or promote his beliefs to his audience. I think he writes to make other people think for themselves. He creates absolutely evil characters, best example being Iago, but still gives them relatable qualities and likeable moments. If Shakespeare really wants us to think in such bold lines of good and evil, right and wrong, then why does he write scenes where the audience is rooting for the main villain? Similar to the way Shylock’s “Hath not a Jew..” speech can be seen as both a plea for tolerance and a justification for violence, I believe that the entire play The Merchant of Venice shows both anti-Semitic views and the unfairness of discrimination in very strong lights.
ReplyDeleteNo one can deny the anti-Semitic elements of the play. Shylock is a stereotypical Jewish man, with a stereotypical Jewish occupation, and in the end he loses absolutely everything. Hitler wouldn’t have been a fan of the play, nor would he have allowed it to be performed in the Burgtheater as Nazi propaganda, if it was simply about a Jewish man speaking against discrimination (https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/04/theater/theater-shylock-and-nazi-propaganda.html). On the other hand, Shylock’s speech (in Act 3, Scene 1) is incredibly powerful. My favourite lines are “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” Shylock tells the audience that there is no real difference between Jewish people and them, thus no real reason to hate him so much. There’s no way Shakespeare would have added something so true and heartfelt if he really was an anti-Semite. I hate to have the typical indecisive answer of “both and none”, but that’s exactly what I think. The Merchant of Venice has both aspects of anti-Semitism and discrimination, but I don’t think Shakespeare wrote it to promote either of the two.
In regards to revenge I think it’s justifiable, even if it is often not morally sound. Shylock had every right to want to take action against Antonio or any other merchant that treated him with hate. I think the simple thought of “they hurt me, so I want to hurt them back” is a very legitimate and reasonable feeling. That being said, I’m a vengeful person. Recently my sister ate a box of my Thin Mints and a week later, without the slightest hesitation I stole a box of her Samoa cookies. It’s not on the same level as murder, but she was so dramatic about it it might as well have been.
I also believe that Shakespeare's characters are not completely black and white. It is hard to distinguish whether or not the situation calls for such drastic measures. However, it is easier to say what we would do looking outside of the situation between Shylock and Antonio.
DeleteHello, Erica! First of all, I will say that like you, I am no Shakespeare 'expert'. I think the only play I've previously read, and actually analyzed, of his was Hamlet, during my sophomore year of high school. That said, however, I feel like your judgment of the way in which he forms his characters is spot-on. There is a lot of interpretation that can be done in regards to his characters' actions, for instance; we see that clearly in Shylock's revenge.
DeleteSecond, I too enjoyed Shylock's speech for its incredible power. I know I did not quote it in my original post, but it was indeed something that jumped out at me as I read the play. This may seem a little bold to admit, but, I honestly feel that Shylock's speech, though it was originally intended to combat differences between Jews and Christians, could also stand as a combat to racism. It is that compelling, and reminds everyone that even though we are of different religions (and "races"), we all bleed the same, we all have similar reflexes, and our lives are all finite.
And third, I second your notion that Shylock had the right to want to avenge Antonio. However, we've got to ask ourselves: is the scope of revenge that Shylock wants from Antonio (essentially violence) appropriate for the situation (general mistreatment)? As I have articulated in my original post, the answer to that, for me, would be 'no'. You may say 'yes', and that is fine; I just think it is important to consider how we respond to others' threats/mistreatment in relation to how big of a deal they actually were. That said, I am not a vengeful person, so in your situation, I probably would have just gone and bought another box of Thin Mints. But maybe that would not be the 'most satisfying' thing to do.
Erica, you make an interesting point about Shakespeare’s intentions regarding antisemitism. I like how you brought up the line Shylock said to prove that Jews are humans too and should not be treated differently. I think you are right in saying that Shakespeare would not have put that line in the play if he was truly committed to antisemitism. Although, like you said, there were other elements in the play that made it seem like he was. It is hard to decipher if the play was for or against Jews or maybe it was somewhere in the middle.
DeleteHi Lizzy! I also read and analysed Hamlet in high school along with some other plays! I was lucky enough to have amazing teachers that made Shakespeare really enjoyable and engaging. Thank you for your comment on my post! I don’t think it’s bold at all to think Shylock’s speech could also apply to racism. There are many different types of discrimination and I think it can all be addressed by Shylock’s words.
DeleteAlso I do wonder what you mean by “general mistreatment” in regards to your question about Shylock’s revenge. I don’t see anything “general” about Antonio’s actions. Antonio specifically targets Shylock because he is Jewish, and frequently spits on him. I don’t think targeting a specific type of person nor doing something as vile as spitting on them can be termed as anything lighter than abuse. And yes, I do think the actions Shylock wants to take against Antonio are appropriate. This isn’t only about revenge, but also about an agreement between two men. They decided from the beginning the exact terms for the contract and if Antonio wasn’t prepared to risk a pound of flesh for his beloved Bassanio, then he shouldn’t have agreed and borrowed the money. I respect your thoughts on this case between Shylock and Antonio, and I do agree that in many situations violence is not an appropriate answer. But ya know, sometimes a deal’s a deal :/.
Erica, thank you so much for sharing!
DeleteI have to begin by saying that I think your overall answer of "both or none" is completely acceptable due to the fact that this prompt was not written in a way that warranted a "correct" answer. However, I do wish that you would have used more examples from the play to support your thesis. With this being said, you began your first paragraph by comparing Shakespeare's style of writing to the Merchant of Venice, which I think was a very interesting approach. I think that if you would have perhaps quoted another one of Shakespeare's works directly instead of making a broad statement about most of his plays that you have read such would have really "brought your argument home".
In regards to the second paragraph you wrote I also wish you would have given me a little bit more! You gave me your opinion straight out which I appreciate, but you never really justify why you believe this beyond the fact that you are a vengeful person. I will say though, that last part you wrote about the thin mints has me a bit worried...maybe I should just say your response was perfect, please don't take revenge on me!
Although I am not in favor of the way Shylock intended to pursue his revenge against Antonio, I do believe that the way everything unraveled during the court scene was not what I would call a fair resolution. In act 1 scene 3, Antonio makes this sly comment to Bassanio, "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose! An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, A goodly apple rotten at the heart." while asking Shylock for the loan. Imagine being talked about with so much disrespect. These types of moments lead me to sympathize with Shylock more than anyone in the play. As the court day arrives, Shylock openly expresses, "The pound of flesh which I demand of him Is dearly bought; [’tis] mine and I will have it." (Act 4, scene 1). A deal is a deal after all. In the same scene Portia who is disguised as Balthazar points out, "Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh, But in the cutting it, if thou dost shed One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods Are by the laws of Venice confiscate Unto the state of Venice." Which basically means that Shylock would have to risk his own life in order to finally get his revenge on Antonio. In the end, Shylock decides not to go though with the bond, but Antonio comes up with a way to punish Shylock for what he almost did. Antonio shares, "...For this favor He presently become a Christian..." Not only did Shylock gain nothing from this, he also is striped away from his own religion. I feel as though the audience is left with a longing for Shylock to have revenge.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I would want to defend Shylock all the way, his way of revenge isn't so sweet, and I agree that the way the court scene was unfair but I somewhat knew it was coming. When things get too good for one character the author almost always have something that will rip their happiness from where they stand. Except, in Shylock's case in order to save his life he had to convert. That ending makes me wish Shylock got his pound of flesh and go on with his life. I do want to see the "alternate" ending in favor of Shylock even though people would say that it would've furthered the idea that Jews were "devious" and such.
DeleteLet us not forget that the court scene is not the end of the play- simply the end of Shylock’s appearance. As the PBS documentary identifies, Shylock “haunts” the last act, even if he is no longer mentioned or seen. It allows the audience to become invested in Portia’s fight for Antonio’s love, and not only that but the play is revolving around the merchant. Yasmine, isn’t it interesting that either way you turn with Shylock’s choices, the Jewish representation faces defeat? If we follow the play as written, then the last of the Jews in the story dies off when Shylock gets converted. On the other hand, if we alter it in such a way that either Shylock kills Antoni, or takes his money, then the audience walks away from the play still thinking, “selfish, devious Jews”.
DeleteWasn't Portia fighting for Bassanio's love? But yeah despite the gruesome revenge Shylock intended to pursue, the play left me wanting some sort of different resolution for Shylock in the end.
DeleteYou're right, my fingers were moving faster than my brain there, thank you for the correction.
DeleteI agree so much with what you have said. I felt almost defeated and unsatisfied with how the whole thing played out, I didn't want anyone to die but I did at least want justice for Shylock. This play has put me in such a strange place, my emotions are all over the place and I don't know how to feel about anything!
DeleteNohely, as much as I hate feeling that sense of longing revenge Shakespeare really lures me to seek revenge in this final court scene. I would have liked for Shylock to stir his vengence and best Antonio; however, I don't think that, that would have brought much attention to the way Jews were treated at the time.
DeleteThere are indeed many factors to consider, interpreting whether this play was intended to be about antisemitism or not. It was mentioned in the “Shakespeare Uncovered: The Merchant of Venice” documentary, that this was a popular topic of the time. Many stereotypes about the Jews were spread and turning these into plays for entertainment was something that was starting to happen at the time. Shakespeare’s rival, Christopher Marlowe had written "The Jew of Malta." Shakespeare decided to write his own play about a Jew. It is hard for me to know if Shakespeare’s view is for or against the Jews. In the beginning of my examining this play I thought he was trying to show the pain Jews go through and how they do not deserve it. However, when it came to the court scene, Antonio and Portia turned on Shylock, the Jew, after he said he would not kill Antonio. It seemed as if Shakespeare was supporting the side against the Jews. I would have to say the play is not antisemitic.
ReplyDeleteI was not satisfied with the resolution of the court scene. I do not believe killing Antonio would have been the answer for Shylock, nevertheless, what Shylock received instead of deciding to kill Antonio was not justice. Shylock was going to let the case close, without any compensation, then Portia stopped him. She said in Act IV, Scene 1, “The law hath yet another hold on you. It is enacted in the laws of Venice, if it be proved against an alien that by direct or indirect attempts he seek the life of any citizen, the party ’gainst the which he doth contrive shall seize one half his goods,” (362-368). Portia succeeded in saving Antonio’s life minutes before this, but now she was treating Shylock just as badly as he treated Antonio. Shylock was about to have everything taken away, but Antonio steps in and lessens the blow a little. In Act IV, Scene 1 Antonio states his offer to Shylock, “So please my lord the Duke and all the court to quit the fine for one half of his goods, I am content, so he will let me have the other half in use, to render it upon his death unto the gentleman that lately stole his daughter. Two things provided more: that for this favor he presently become a Christian; the other, that he do record a gift, here in the court, of all he dies possessed unto his son Lorenzo and his daughter,” (396-406). I felt anger inside because Antonio was getting to decide what happens to Shylock when he was the one that owed him something. Antonio revealed that he did not have respect for Shylock and probably never would. Antonio is the one that deserves punishment, yet his life is spared, and Shylock suffers.
There are a few things that I would change about this scene. I would still have Antonio remain alive and not let Shylock murder him. What comes after that moment is what I would change. I would let Shylock accept the money Bassanio offered him and walk away with that. The court case is closed, and Shylock can go back to his Jewish life. His life would not be perfect, he would still be ill-treated for being a Jew, but would at least have a small sense of satisfaction. I would want Shylock to have justice in the end.
While I agree that the play is not antisemitic from my observation, it certainly seems to depict Jews with utter contempt considering the ending. It's perplexing to say the least. Is Shakespeare a discriminatory man or is he the man trying to show what life was like for the group of people? I can't say for sure but Shakespeare points the story in a completely one-sided direction and puts Shylock in a devastating position. Shylock definitely should have justice in the end. The whole ordeal was unfair and morally immature of all parties.
DeleteAshlynne, first let me begin by saying thank you for sharing your response!
DeleteI like that you tied the documentary into your analysis of the play, this is something that I don't think I have seen many other people do. The documentary does indeed give many insights into the world that Shakespeare lived in and I believe that that element as a whole is very important to address when considering whether or not the play is antisemitic. With this being said, it was a very good idea of you to include it as part of your evidence. I do wish that you would have given me just a bit more from the play though, perhaps in the form of a direct quote from Antonio or Portia.
As for your second paragraph, I feel as if it is exactly what Bryson and I hoped for from our prompt. You took the time to find a direct quote that supported your thesis, you more than adequately stated how you felt about the court scene and why, and you explained what you would have changed. Overall you did a very good job with this!
I believe that The Merchant of Venice wasn’t intended to be antisemitic, I like to think that it was a way for others to look into what it was like being a Jew. You never know what it’s like on the other side until you see a slice of their life. It could’ve been also intended to further prove that Jews were being mistreated and really show how wrong it is to take someone’s differences too far. Christianity is about treating one another well and at this time, they were definitely going against that “rule”. Personally, I don’t enjoy how the court scene went. It ended with Shylock having to convert to the popular religion just to save his own life. It stripped Shylock of being human. Portia comes in to save Antonio from his bond while effectively stripping Shylock of what little he had from the beginning. Although, if there was something I could change about the whole story line; I would change what Shylock wants in exchange if Antonio couldn’t pay him back. The ending the other way would feel conflicting to me and those people at that time would take that as “oh, the Jews are just murderous demons”.
ReplyDeleteYasmine, I agree with you regarding changing the ending to help Shylock out a bit. I began to wonder though, how would the rest of the play end? Your suggestion of having Shylock request something else rather than flesh would definitely change the course of the play. I do not think the drama would have been quite as effective in the overall story. The stakes are not as high, so it would not be as interesting. My suggestion, to have Shylock achieve some sort of compensation in the end, I think would change how the play comes off as well. In the end, the “bad guy” would not win. I’m beginning to realize that Shakespeare had purpose in playing with our emotions. If these elements that we wish to change were indeed changed, the overall effectiveness of the play might not be there anymore.
DeleteHi Yasmine, I agree I do not believe the play was intended to slander or add any more untrue stereotypes for the Jewish people, but I also do not believe Shakespeare was showing support for Jewish people either. I feel it was more of an observation coming from a neutral bystander. Shylock being forced to convert to Christianity is like a small form of death. While the court scene may not have ended with any psychical deaths, a part of Shylock died by forcing him to convert.
DeleteYasmine, I definitely agree that the play wasn't meant to slander Jews or put them in bad light. By portraying Shylock this way though, it invites people to make mock judgements without looking at the reasoning behind Shylock's character. It's hard to know exactly which side to root for in this debacle but both sides are flawed. Antonio the cruel christian, Shylock the mistreated Jew who wants revenge. The way the both present their sides of the story makes us bystanders as Aryanna said. I think it was morally wrong to force Shylock to convert, and if I could change that scene, I would probably have given Shylock a more fair compromise.
DeleteYasmine, you bring up good points about how the court scene did not work out in Shylock's favor. I can concede your notion that Shylock's forced conversion to Christianity, at the end of the trial, essentially stripped him of one of the only things he had left: his humanity. However, what Ashlynne touched upon in her reply above is very important to keep in mind: the play, much less the court scene, would (likely) not have been as powerful if not for the way things originally unfolded. I second this belief, but can see where you and her are coming from in wanting justice for Shylock.
DeleteAll of you are making very interesting points that are highlighting a very significant aspect of Shakespeare's plays. It becomes almost a repetitive theme that there must be an immense lose in his work, whether that be written into a comedy (The Taming of the Shew), tragedy (Romeo and Juliet), or one that balances between the two, such as this play. If Antonio's life wasn't on the line, the what was the audience sitting on the edge of their seat for during the first half of the play? In this story it is a cultural loss, a spiritual loss, and I think it is very relevant for the time period that this was written, as there was a power struggle of sorts occurring between the Christians and Jews.
DeleteI agree that this play's purpose was to shine light on the poor treatment of the Jews, and how it is extremely difficult to put your self in their shoes. There was definitely a problem with hypocrisy upon Christians durring those times, it seems as though they were using there power as a way to discriminate and belittle the Jews.
DeleteYasmine, I like that you brought attention to Christian beliefs and how that plays into Shylock's confinement. What kind of morally good Christian would make a man chose between his life and his religion? To me, it would be no different than to forcefully turn me away from my religious beliefs than it would be to cut off pounds of my body.
DeleteI do not believe Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice was meant to be antisemitic. I believe the play was to question the idea of morality on an extreme scale. Shakespeare pushes the audience to question their own sense of right and wrong. Shylock represents the small part of us all tempted to act on our own dark fantasies. Which is part of what makes the audience identify with Shylock.
ReplyDeleteI believe Shylock was projecting his pain onto Antonio. To Shylock, Antonio represented what he hated in the world. Antonio was a cruel Christian man, who was cruel to Jewish people including Shylock. I believe Shylock was justifiably angry and in pain, and desperate for some control in his life. Every aspect of a Jewish persons life was controlled by the dominating culture. Shylock was given an opportunity to release his anger and pain, while also having absolute control. I may not agree with what Shylock did, but I can understand why.
I really like your point of view about the play questioning morality! Like you said, Shylock finds himself with an extreme moral dilemma, which is also presented onto the audience. I also agree with you in that Shylock's feelings were justifiable. This was perhaps his only opportunity to get back at the man and the culture that has hurt him for years. I definitely wouldn't have chosen to take the pound of flesh, but I also respect Shylock's decision.
DeleteAryanna, I agree that Shylock's hunger for revenge is justifiable because of the discrimination and abuse Jews like him faced on a daily basis.
DeleteErica, the play does a great job at forcing the audience to take hold of Shylocks problem as if it were our own. Which then forces us to answer the question of "Is what Shylock doing justifiable or completely immoral?" I believe the grey areas of morality and justice are themes that make this play so powerful.
DeleteAryanna, thank you so much for sharing your response for this weeks blog post!
DeleteLet me begin by getting the obvious out of the way, your response is fairly short for what Bryson and I assigned. Although I am glad that you clearly stated your answers to our questions, a big part of the assignment was also to explain, with quotes, how you came to these answers. I wish that you would have spent more time backing up your argument because your argument was very unique. I think that if you would have found quotes from the play or even cited the documentary that Dr. Cleworth addressed in class you would have had a nearly perfect response.
Getting those formalities out of the way, your response to whether or not Shylock was projecting his pain was amazing. I think you hit the nail on the head completely.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice is antisemitic or accidentally antisemitic. I believe that Shakespeare is a man who likes to change the way people consume their form of media. He gets the audience to think as well as relate to them. Preceding this play's time period, there was already lots of discrimination among the Jews, so coming at this from my perspective, I believe there was heavy influence of that discrimination and hate towards the Jewish merchant. This doesn't mean necessarily that Shakespeare was looking to be antisemitic, but to be representative of the atmosphere. He does have a dialogue in Act 3 Scene 1 where he states his contempt for his revenge being no different than anyone else's.
ReplyDelete"Fed with the
same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to
the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not
bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you
poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall
we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong
a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian
example? Why, revenge! The villainy you teach me I
will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the
instruction."
This is my evidence that the play is not antisemitic and that Shakespeare is showcasing the struggles of someone who wants revenge but was controlled by the dominating culture. This interest in flesh was his way to take control, and his emotions are raw and passionate and I can see why people looking in can sit on the line between Antonio and Shylock. I do think that Shylock was projecting his pain on Antonio and that it isn't justified in the slightest. What's that saying that might have been coined by Shakespeare, "Be the better man." I think that taking the high rode is more morally rewarding and sustainable than revenge.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteEthan, you make a valid point. I could also agree with you that their environment at the time could have played an effective role as to how Shakespeare chose to execute The Merchant of Venice. I liked that you used this piece of the scheme because I think that the more you read it, the more one is able to step into Shylock's shoes. I especially liked the part in which Shylock says, "The villainy you teach me I will execute and it shall go hard but I will better the instructions". If I were alive and present while this happened I think that I would feel, as what we like to call it now a days, "roasted".
DeleteEthan, you are making very good and unique points. In reference to "being the better man", that thinking makes me wonder, and wish, that there was more insight of Shylock's life. We could've seen what made Shylock latch onto Antonio; did the merchant really treat Shylock so much worse than other Christians? Or did Antonio catch him on a bad day? It makes me wish that Shakespeare had kept the title, "The Jew of Venice", because I think that would give an avenue for more time with Shylock's character.
DeleteI do not believe The Merchant of Venice was intended to be antisemitic, the reason being Shakespeare gave his Jewish character reasons for wanting revenge. Shylock was treated extremely poorly by the Christian Antonio (I, iii, 137), but in this case, Shylock could get revenge in a legal manner thanks to Antonio agreeing to give a pound of his flesh to Shylock if the payment for the loan was not payed (I,iii, 162). Shylock is clearly upset with Antonio and other Christians because they oppress him and other Jews so of course he's going to want revenge. This very natural human desire Shylock had is very realistic to any person regardless of time period.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, I am not satisfied with the resolution. This may say a lot about me, but I think the law should have been honored and Shylock should have taken the pound of meat he was promised. I believe that if the roles were reversed, if Shylock were the one who didn't pay back on time, Antonio would get his pound of meat without resistance.
I really like how you brought up how if the roles were reversed, that it would be different. In some ways, I believe that because it really did seem like Shylock was being oppressed and treated unfairly. I also didn't like the ending as well. I like seeing the oppressed be able to get revenge on the oppressors in any story but apparently Shakespeare wanted to show us a Jews point of view and maybe that revenge isn't always the answer.
DeleteDamaris, very interesting that you offered an idea to reverse the of Antonio and Shylock, I really like that point of view. The way that Shakespeare has built this play not only represents the mistreatment of the Jews of Venice in this time, but with applying your mindset it also opens up another avenue of thought. The court scene can provide a look at the inequality of opportunity between the Jews and Christians, if only one thinks to switch the roles, as you have.
DeleteI think that the play was accidentally antisemitic but not really intended for that purpose. However I do think Shakespeare writes this play to show how hard it is to get revenge on someone. I believe that Revenge can be justified but then again my religion say otherwise. I, however, still think that Revenge is justified when needed. In Shylocks situation, they made a deal and Antonio, instead of paying for his actions, weaseled his way out of the deal. In this situation, Antonio shouldn't have been able to have been released and Shylock shouldn't have been accused of murder, since part of their bond, that Antonio signed, was that Shylock was able to cut 1 pound of flesh from Antonio. This, however, did not happen and instead Shylock was the one in trouble and could've been sentenced to death. In a way, Shakespeare is kind of telling us the struggles of Revenge and to me, it sounds like he's showing that it isn't worth it. The fact that Shylock tried to get revenge for the money that Antonio used and never repaid and in return was faced with more obstacles shows that Revenge can be the worst thing to happen. Although, I wished that Shylock got his revenge because I don't think it was fair for Shylock to be mistreated by Antonio and give him money anyways but then Antonio gets no punishment.
ReplyDeleteIsac, let me begin by saying thank you for sharing your response!
DeleteI wish you would have given me just a bit more with your introduction. I agree with you that the play was probably accidentally antisemitic, but I would have liked to see some sort of justification as to why you believe this. I feel as if I can make this point for the majority of your response.
I think that is it interesting what your stance is on Shylock's journey for revenge though, seeing as revenge is against what your region believes in. I think that Shakespeare did intend for the play to end the way that it did, and perhaps that he meant to show exactly what you explained, revenge is not always worth it. With this being said, I wish you would have touched on the question of morality. You argue that Shylock has every reason to seek revenge against Antonio because Antonio mistreated Shylock, but can't someone else argue that murder is still wrong?
NOEMI RAMIREZ
ReplyDeleteI do not believe this play was to be seen as a way to promote anti-Semitic but to make the discrimination of the Jewish people known. In Act 3 there is Shylock expresses his opinion about why Antonio is giving him such a hard time, because he is Jewish.
I hardly believe revenge can be justified but in this case I feel it can be. Shylock didn't want harm done to Antonio just because he was a Christian but because of all the pain and suffering he experienced by Antonio's demands.
Shylock's way of revenge was a bit intense and could have been handled better but i understand and sympathized with him.
Noemi, let me start by saying thank you for sharing your response! Right off the bat I notice that your response is fairly short. I really wish you would have given me a bit more here because the prompt specified that you needed to do more than just state your opinion on our questions. In the future I would make sure to give some sort of justification for your answer that is backed up with either direct or paraphrased quotes from the source.
DeleteWith this being said, I do not think that there was a right or wrong answer for this prompt. I have several questions that I think you could answer in order to lengthen your response.
You state that The Merchant of Venice was written in order to "make the discrimination of the Jewish people known". If this is true then why did the play end the way it did?
You also state that you "hardly believe revenge can be justified" explain to me why.
I also would have loved for you to expand on the point you made about Antonio being a Christian. I have not seen anyone make this point yet and I feel as if it could have been a perfect avenue to address why Shylock was being antagonized. Yes he was a Jew, but why does that not fit the ideals of Antonio, the avid Christian.
After assessing different factors of The Merchant of Venice, I believe that Shakespeare did not intend it to be an anti-Semitic play but merely a more anti-Semitic exploration. I noticed that throughout the scheme Shakespeare delineates neither Shylock (Jew) nor Antonio (Christian) any less or any more superior than the other, in fact, the Jews are seen a little less bad than the stereotypical Jew and the Christian a little less good than what they were typically portrayed as. During Act 4, for example, Portia, disguised as Balthazar, asks "Which is the merchant here, and which the Jew?" (Act 4, Scene 1, Line 176). Doing so, Shakespeare appears to bring attention to the moral balance that he incorporated within his work between Jews and Christians.
ReplyDeleteOverall, from what I was able to perceive from the court scene, I wasn’t satisfied with the resolution. There was as much wrong-doing in defending Christian beliefs than there was in accusing Jews. In this case scenario, wealth is being defended at the cost of forcefully converting someone into a religion that they do not oblige by. How much more different can that be to cutting off a pound of one’s own flesh? That to me doesn’t sound like a rightfully Christian act and that would be something I’d change in this scenario. What I don’t understand about this scheme was Portia’s role in which her entire oration lies on showing people mercy but she betrays those beliefs when she defends Antonio where she shows Shylock no mercy. Portia alludes earlier in the play about her indulgences in hypocrisy when she says, “I can easier teach 20 what were good to be do than to be one of the 20 to follow mine own teachings” (Act 1, Scene 2, Line 15-17). Why then, I question myself, would Portia find it exceptional to show Shylock no mercy when her core beliefs bordered good morality. I was a little skeptical as to wheater Shakespeare wrote this play in order to embark anti-Sepitism but as I continued te read through The Merchant of Venice I could see that Shakespeare actually brought attention to the situation and explored it within Shylock's character.
I really like your analysis of the play's anti-Semitic themes and how you explained it as an exploration of them. Your comment about Portia's line is very interesting. I didn't notice or pay much attention to it before, but I definitely agree with you on the meaning. For the majority of the play, I think you're right that Shakespeare didn't intend for it to be anti-Semitic. But the ending throws me off. Shylock basically loses everything. He loses the money he originally lent to Antonio, the 3,000 he would have gotten back from Antonio, he loses his faith as he's forced to convert to Christianity, and he's forced to give his wealth to the daughter he lost and the Christian man that took her. I really wonder what Shakespeare's intentions for this play were, because it seems a little like he wanted to upset his Jewish audience with the immense loss Shylock took. To be fair, the Christians of the story weren't left unscathed. But ultimately, having relationship problems isn't as bad as losing nearly everything.
DeleteI also really like how you compare taking a pound of flesh to forcing someone to convert religion. That's a really powerful analogy and I think you described it perfectly.
Vanessa, your point about Portia's morals is very intriguing to me, that is a very good point. To counter, I think that a good portion of why Portia "stood by" as Shylock lost his religion, is because of the main influence with Christianity. In this time period, those who are religious believe that they are correct, and by converting other, by choice or by force, is their way of saving their soul. I don't think Portia didn't recognize that by her actions, she took away the last important tie to Shylock's past.
DeleteI am still not really sure of what to make of the overall ending, in ways I feel even more unsatisfied because nothing really pleasing happened. I would've at least wanted for Shylock to be avenged, but not though Antonio's death (as you can see I am still unsure of my feelings). One of the few moments in the play that gave me the slightest bit of peace was when Portia, disguised as Balthazar, confronts Shylock of why he should have mercy. Found in act 4 scene 1 lines 203-208, Portia reveals:
ReplyDelete"Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this:
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy."
Though Shylock does not listen, there is a moment for the audience at least, that bring us all back to the reality that it is not right to let rage dictate your life as well as others'. We live in a world where your consequences have actions, and this scene poses the question
"is taking his life worth giving up yours". I personally do not believe in murder, and it is a hard point of view to back up, however, my beliefs and spirituality are my motivators, therefore, that is the reason I think this way. I am also extremely empathetic so causing anyone pain at all will result me to give in. I do believe in natural forces that ultimately punish those who do wrong to others, so I for the most part do not interfere; however I also do believe that some times this force uses people to work through, declaring justice, so if this inclination in me urges me to say something or stand up for what is right I will not hesitate. But along with that, that is the reason why I personally was so against what Shylock was about to do, I wasn't against his feelings of betrayal and sorrow, but as a spiritual person that he was, it was just a bit confusing to me why he wouldn't trust that Antonio would meet persecution by God. But I do want to add lastly that the reason I believe it was a bit difficult for me to understand regarding Shylock's intence urge for vengeance, was because even though I know what its like to be out casted, as we all do, I have never, and probably will never, go though what he did, and for that I will never be as mentally broken, or traumatized as he was durring his life.
And I do not believe this play was supposed to be Antisemitic nor do I think it is. I think is just an example of how tramma affects different kinds of people. In Shylocks case, he had dealt with so much, and such bad events can result in a distortion of people's morality.
DeleteHi Jacey. I completely understand how you feel when you say you feel "unsatisfied" with the overall ending of the play. I also talk about it briefly in my own post. I agree that the problem with Shylock lay in his morality based on the bad events and people he dealt with in his time. I mentioned this in my post as well when I talked about how it seems Shylock has lost literally everything that makes him happy in his life. I think this is the leading cause for his actions, though not justified, it explains why Shylock has such dark intents and why we want them to follow through.
DeleteJacey, thank you so much for sharing your response to our blog prompt this week!
DeleteLet me being by saying that I am very impressed by how well your paragraphs are written. You were one of the only people I saw that quoted several lines from the play and I feel as if doing such truly set your response apart from anyone else's. Before I even read your entire response I could tell that you did not come to play!
I also really enjoyed your second paragraph where you explained your stance on morality and how morality plays into Shylock's situation. You gave adequate reasoning behind what you believed and supported your explanations with evidence; I think you wrote just about a perfect response.
I do not believe Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is antisemitic in its context, although I think it is very easy to mistake it for a production of antisemitism when viewed without observing in great detail. It almost seems like Shakespeare is portraying Shylock as how the Jewish people were typically viewed by those who were not Jewish, but in mostly negative light. Although Shakespeare does depict the outright disrespect and sometimes even abuse, unfortunately faced by much of the Jewish population in this time period. "He hath disgraced me and hindered 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, 53-57). This causes the audience to connect with Shylock and feel remorse in a way for everything he is encountering, not to mention that he is faced with in his personal life. Shylock has not only lost his wife, but he is faced with the task of raising a daughter on his own and has not been very successful although he has good intentions. This is another factor that plays into Shylock's character and helps develop the story as well as our feelings in association with him. Shakespeare does an outstanding job of making the viewers hold remorse for Shylock even when he has committed to such an evil deed, the audience almost is cheering for the death of Antonio because of the suffering Shylock has experienced; and even the thought of this can make an audience contemplate what they really want to see. Shakespeare really forces the viewers to look at both sides and throughout the play, it almost looks certain that Shylock will extract that targeted pound of flesh. Some may want to see the death of Antonio out while others cheer for mercy; unlike any other artist, Shakespeare can encapsulate an audience in story as well as truly make those think about morals and lessons of life that takes one through an emotional journey while reading and contemplating his work.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I am also not so sure how I feel regarding the court scene and the results of Shylock's case. I do not think I wanted to see Antonio die, but I definitely did not favor the ending Shylock receives. I feel like Shylock was cheated after everything that has happened to him. At the end Shylock shows mercy in the case after all, but it is then determined that Shylock must convert to Christianity as a punishment. At this point in the play, it seems like he has basically lost everything: his wife, his daughter, his happiness, his money, and now his way of life, his religion. I just feel so bad for Shylock it almost makes me wish that he did take Antonio's life. But then what kind of monster would that make Shylock if he were to stoop down and take a another man's life against his own religion? And how would he be viewed by the Christian man then? It would make him the very same monster that Jewish people were visualized and ridiculed to be back in the day by Christians and many other groups. So, in this case, I am glad Shylock did not choose to take Antonio's life, but I do not favor how Shylock was treated as a result of his spite and rage. Anyone who could see what Shylock was going through from his point of view could see why his actions follow the character he is, and I do sympathize with him as a character and understand why he went to such lengths.
Kyle, thank you for sharing your response to our blog post this week!
DeleteLet me begin by saying that your response fully adheres to what Bryson and I had hoped to get from you guys this week. You not only clearly answered our questions and used quotes from the play to explain your answers, but I can tell that you also personalized the prompt and took it in a different direction. I appreciate that you did not just regurgitate what others had said before you and that you actually took the time to think about what you were going to post before you posted it.
I also enjoyed your second paragraph where you analysed the court scene because you were one of the only people I saw that addressed the context of Shylock's time period. I do not think that there was a "right or wrong" answer for our prompt, but as I have said in other comments I have made, I believe that looking at the time period in which Shakespeare wrote this play is the key to answering whether or not the play was overall antisemitic. You did this very well.
As mentioned by some of the other posts, it is important to consider the time and place that this play was written and not to allow our modern perspectives to color our views too much. The Merchant of Venice was first performed in England in 1605, where the Edict of Expulsion had been in effect since the year 1290. That’s over three hundred years of forced relocation, subjugation, marginalization, and heavy taxation of the Jewish population. In other words, anti-Semitism was not a view to be promoted, but the literal law of the land. To assert that the depiction of Shylock is anything more than a stereotyped caricature that continued to feed Judeophobia and anti-Semitism for centuries in Europe, requires a bit of digging. I do find Shylock’s speech to be an evocative plea for justice, but I wonder how it would’ve been received in early 17th century England. Were I an Englishman living in this time period, where Jews had to wear a bright red cap to identify themselves, where Jews were forcibly confined to ghettos, and regularly referred to as the devil incarnate, would I be capable of looking past my cognitive bias and seeing another human being? I think it’s more likely that the reaction would be closer to Antonio’s, “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose!” than to our modern, “This is a man who is responding to the inhumanity of his discrimination and exacting his just revenge in the only way that he can.”
ReplyDeleteAs far as the revenge being justified, I’m with Ghandi, “An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.” When it comes to a minority population fighting against the discriminatory majority, a strategy built on violence is flawed from the start. The minority simply doesn’t have the numbers to force change in that way, and any non-decisive violence against the majority will only serve to strengthen the prejudice against the minority. I think that history has largely shown that the most effective means of instituting change is stoic, nonviolent protest. Therefore, if ‘justified’ is taken to mean effective in pursuit of a good outcome, then no, Shylock is not justified. That said, there is an animalistic part of me that can understand Shylock wanting that pound of flesh to be rendered. The vitriol is palpable, and a deal is a deal, but I just don’t see the point.
Darrick, thank you for providing a different approach with this prompt. Paying close attention to the time period that this play was released, I can understand where you're coming from, and it is increasingly compelling. Many past posts have asked, "If Shakespeare gave Shylock this compelling speech, why did he still take everything away from him?" and I have a feeling those questions are answered within your response.
Delete