The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0614 Monday, 2 July 2006
[1] From: Carol Barton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 30 Jun 2006 13:49:50 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0610 The Big Question (long)
[2] From: John Crowley <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 30 Jun 2006 16:50:22 -0400
Subj: Big Question
[3] From: David Basch <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 02 Jul 2006 20:57:30 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0610 The Big Question
[4] From: Donald Bloom <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 3 Jul 2006 10:05:13 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0611 The Big Question
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carol Barton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 30 Jun 2006 13:49:50 -0400
Subject: 17.0610 The Big Question (long)
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0610 The Big Question (long)
I would like to reply to David Evert's comment that Portia's racist
comment is intended "to show that Portia is a young girl naturally
swayed by conventional standards of beauty: that she's not wise enough
to completely discount them. But if even a black man chose the right
casket he would have proved his essential rightness-his fairness-and
following the wise command of her father, she would have to marry him."
I think there's more to it than this, David. Portia is not wise-not
impartial-but "swayed by conventional standards" (of more than beauty)
like any young girl-a naive subjectivity unbecoming in a judge. If in
"resolving" the debate between Shylock and Antonio she asserts "mercy,"
where is her mercy after the fact-or his before-toward a man who is
abused and vilified by his debtors for an act of apparent
generosity-caritas-in the form of lending money at no interest, and
foregoing his customary profit? who has been deprived even of repayment
of the principal by the loss of Antonio's ships? and who has demanded
the letter of the law only after the borrower has made it clear to him
that there is no gratitude, but rather open contempt, involved in the
transaction? Were Shylock not a Jew (regardless of his likeableness as a
person, or his treatment of his daughter-which are immaterial to the
circumstances of the freely enacted bargain), but a Christian in similar
circumstances, would he be demeaned and mistreated and deprived of far
more than he originally risked, the way he is in the play? Were Portia
the same kind of fair, wise, and impartial judge who would accept
whoever passed the casket test if he were a Polyphemus look-alike with
three heads and purple polka dots, *because the ground rules to which
she (de facto) agreed said that the winner would become her husband*--a
Christian father's letter-of-the-law pronouncement of his Christian
daughter's fate, regardless of her personal preferences in the
matter-then perhaps she would be able to rule with fairness AND mercy in
Shylock's case. A wise judge might recognize that the injury (realized
for Antonio only if the agreement were to be enforced-otherwise, he has
gained all and risked nothing) was on *both* sides-and that Antonio
added insult to tangible legal injury by provoking Shylock even beyond
default of the loan. Equity is not based on the attractiveness of the
plaintiff-or his lifestyle-but on what is fair, and just-and mercy is
only license, if it isn't tempered by justice.
An example: a young inner-city man who was sexually and physically
abused throughout his childhood rapes a mean and ugly old woman, and
kills her. We might show clemency in not invoking the death penalty-but
we would never make him a present of the old woman's estate, and let him
go free into the bargain, claiming she "deserved it" because she was
old, mean, and ugly. He would be punished for the crime at a lesser
degree than someone with a more normal upbringing if we allowed his
background to mitigate in his favor-but he would be punished,
nonetheless-and we would do what we could to make amends to the old
woman's family. What does Antonio suffer for his default, or for his
unprovoked abuse of the source of his loan? How is the behavior of any
of the "Christians" in this play Christ-like? "Love thy neighbor as
thyself?" Not hardly. They covet Shylock's ducats and his daughter . . .
they take from him that which he rightfully owns (regardless of their
disapproval of the means by which he acquired it) and they punish him
for showing mercy to a fellow human being down on his luck-as
uncharacteristic a gesture as that may be, and regardless of his
motives. They even turn his daughter against him.
Would they have done that to one of God's (Christian) children?
Given the way the play turns out, it's interesting to speculate on what
would have happened if the ships had come in after all? Would Antonio
have returned the money, and thanked Shylock for the loan?
Nothing in his subsequent behavior suggests so.
Best to all,
Carol Barton
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Crowley <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 30 Jun 2006 16:50:22 -0400
Subject: Big Question
>By the time Shakespeare wrote MOV banking had
>existed in Italy for upwards of 400 years and many a famous family
>(including the Medici) had gotten their start in that business. It
>strikes me as odd-and highly unlikely-that Antonio would accuse Shylock
>of a sin that was widely practiced by the most important people
>throughout Northern Italy, including (presumably) many of his Christian
>business associates.
It's a tribute to how real we take Shylock's person and circumstances to
be that this remark can be made. The question of course isn't what the
relations of Christians and Jews in Venice in 1590 was, or how the
Medici banking system worked, or what a real Venetian merchant would
think of his banker, but what Shakespeare knew or made up about these
things. Unless you support the Lost Years hypothesis of Shakespeare
spending time in Italy (unlikely), then all he knew was what he read and
heard about. His concern was getting enough local color and
realistic-seeming details into his romance to make it acceptably
realistic -- he didn't mind tossing in an old fairy tale in the middle,
and he certainly didn't mind using antique Christian strictures against
usury if it helped his story work. These are characters in a romance, a
romance has rules and modes of its own; they aren't real Venetians or
real Jews or real merchants at all.
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Basch <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 02 Jul 2006 20:57:30 -0400
Subject: 17.0610 The Big Question
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0610 The Big Question
David Bishop's analysis of the Merchant of Venice repeats all the errors
in misconstruing this play that have been made over the centuries. This
happens because most analysts assume many things about the play and
Shakespeare that are unwarranted.
Most believe that the great poet shared the usual Christian perspective
of his time and its negative view of Jews and that he had as one of his
goals in writing this play, aside from entertaining, an offhanded
affirmation of Christianity and the denigration of Judaism, pitting one
religion against the other with the Christian view made to triumph. As a
result of these assumptions, these commentators fail to notice or ignore
the many details of the play that challenge these assumptions.
For example, David Bishop sees Jessica, Shylock's daughter, as coming
off well in her conversion to Christianity, when, in fact, the play
shows the opposite. Here is David Bishop:
>Jessica simply converts to Christianity and marries the man
>she truly loves, and who loves her. We root for her because
>of her father's meanness and miserliness. Her conversion, as
>far as we can see, seems to oppose generosity--even a hint of
>profligacy--to the miserly father from whom she escapes.
>Where Hitler would have sent her to the camps anyway, in this
>society she's welcomed with open arms. Her regret, her guilt
>at betraying her father, the hints that she and Lorenzo will
>break up, as far as I can tell, do not exist in the play.
But if the scene is recalled where Jessica elopes with Lorenzo, we find
Jessica robbing her father, an act which Gratiano's welcoming arms and
praises approve. Gratiano says, "By my hood, a gentle [that is, gentile]
and no Jew." Can anyone believe that the playwright, Shakespeare, by
this juxtaposition is applauding her immoral action in the scene?
If David would also consider that the enmity between Antonio and Shylock
becomes intensely bitter when Shylock comes to believe that Antonio
helped Jessica in her elopement, he might see her far differently. For
can we take at face value Jessica's charge that she heard her father
plotting against Antonio with another Jew? Shakespeare tips us off to
Jessica's tendency to slander and to do worse when Lorenzo in Act V in
jest answers Jessica's playful slanderous remark against him, actually
calling her remark "slander." What is more, also in Act V, we learn from
Jessica herself that she is "never merry" when she hears music, a
disposition which Lorenzo calls a hallmark of a person given to schemes
and plots. Shakespeare is belatedly telling us things about Jessica that
in the excitement of victory over Shylock audiences fail to take account
of. If her character is questionable then it is only a matter of time
until her character brings her to ruin.
Similarly, while the Christians in the play pride themselves on their
merciful natures, if critics and audiences would pay attention to the
action of the play they would find that the Christians don't actually
practice their values. For example, the Duke readily announces that,
unlike unmerciful Jews, he will immediately spare Shylock's life. But
most commentators and audiences fail to notice that moments later the
Duke withdraws this clemency by demanding on pain of death that Shylock
accept Antonio's terms to give up his wealth and convert to Christianity.
Portia turns out to be the greatest deceiver on mercy. Portia, early in
the play, warns us that she "can sooner teach twenty how to be good"
than to be one to follow her own teaching. She makes good on this
warning when, after making a world famous appeal to Shylock to show
mercy to Antonio, she herself does not show mercy to Shylock. ALL of
Shylock's wealth is taken from him. One half is immediately taken and a
second half is to be used by Antonio to be given to Shylock's heirs
after Shylock's death. Since David Bishop expects mercy from Portia, he
fails to note that she will have none of it for Shylock. Admittedly, the
lines telling of Shylock's punishment are a bit murky, but Shakespeare
helps us by giving us a dry run of it in Portia's statement of her
giving over her own wealth to Bassanio: "One half is yours and the
second half yours too." (I am paraphrasing.)
The character in the MoV with the deepest expressions of emotion, not
bluster, is Shylock. He is shown as a grieving father after having been
shown as a glib and witty communicant with Antonio, to whom he gives a
free loan. (By the by, lending money on interest was legal in England in
the 1590's, though not in Italy. The ban on such lending by Christians
was the result of following the Bible's forbidding of lending on
interest to "brothers," that is, fellow religionists. This is why Jews
could lend to Christians. That Shylock gives a free loan to Antonio is
one of the numerous reasons that some commentators have judged that
Antonio was conceived by Shakespeare as a converted Jew.)
Anyway, can the soulful, suffering father, Shylock, actually be
visualized as capable of carving flesh from a living man? Because
Shakespeare's audiences expected (erroneously) such behavior from Jews,
it becomes believable to them despite its inconsistency with Shylock's
character as presented. Jews readily see this inconsistency and the
false note in painting a religious Jew with such demonic
characteristics. As a result, many Jews have not been overwhelmed by
Shakespeare's greatness in creating his characters. But if those Jews
would follow the play carefully, they would see that something other
than this is unfolding.
For example, consider that when Shylock gets the news of Antonio's
default on his bond, he exclaims, "I'll plague him. I'll torture him."
He does not say he will kill him. All that Shylock demands is the right
to his bond. He is clearly wanting to pressure Antonio into pleading for
mercy in public to the Jew he despised, after which, it is most
plausible that Shylock would magnanimously renounce his bond. It doesn't
happen because Portia pulls the rug out from under him and leaves him in
the pose of a slasher.
Finally, it must be noted that Shakespeare as a dramatist does not
explicitly give his own views. He has his characters present their own
views and act out their individual moralities through their action in
the play. It is then up to audiences to judge the words spoken and the
actions taken. However, this does not easily happen with clarity when
audiences bring with them assumptions and prejudices that prevent them
from reacting to the play Shakespeare wrote. If the action and words of
the play are read correctly, the comedy lies in the hypocrisy of
characters that boast of their high mindedness, kindness, and capacity
for mercy but who fail to practice these when a Jew is concerned. They
are hardly Nazis but they leave a lot of room for improvement as decent
human beings. I think it is these things that are the themes of this one
of Shakespeare's play, as can be noted by Portia's slur against Morocco.
Commentators need to step back from their assumptions and personal
conceptions of who the good guys and bad guys are and carefully examine
the play that Shakespeare actually wrote.
David Basch
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Donald Bloom <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 3 Jul 2006 10:05:13 -0500
Subject: 17.0611 The Big Question
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0611 The Big Question
William Godshalk makes a very sensible response, citing both the text of
the play and a (more or less) contemporary definition of usury which
would seem to support what I called (somewhat flippantly) a Dark Ages
attitude toward lending at interest
The problem is the implication that Shakespeare doesn't know what he's
talking about, or else doesn't care.
If the citation from Rastell represents general Elizabethan opinion on
the subject (that all lending at interest is usury, forbidden by God's
word, and thus a sin), then Shakespeare, in attributing such a
provincial attitude to an educated and erstwhile prosperous Venetian
merchant, leaves us in somewhat of a quandary.
Did he not know that such an attitude in 16th Century Italy was unlikely
to the point of impossibility? Would Antonio have ripped into one of the
Medici or other of the wealthy, powerful and profoundly Christian
businessmen of that time and place who participated cheerfully in
lending (or borrowing) at interest?
Or is Shakespeare playing a game wherein he shifts from ostensible
realism to folk tale or fantasy? Obviously, he does just that in both
the casket-choosing plot and the pound-of flesh bargain, but the
conflict of Antonio and Shylock is generally thought to be quite realistic.
If it is not, where does that leave us?
To recapitulate: If Shakespeare is representing by Antonio a generally
accepted and approved Elizabethan attitude toward any lending at
interest, doesn't that make this Venice into something closely allied to
Belmont and the Woods outside Athens?
Should the whole work be played in that kind of hazy world where fantasy
overlaps with reality?
Cheers,
don
PS. Jack Heller complains about all moral discussions ending up with
MOV. That is my responsibility. I cited the instance of people
overlooking the moral implications of a truly horrible act because the
perpetrator could be associated with a victimized group. That was, to
me, the most obvious example, and the subsequent discussion, I think,
confirmed it. There is, however, nothing to stop him from shifting the
discussion to other moral questions (I, for one, would welcome it). Pick
one.
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
