Previous Discussions

The Merchant of Venice

We just finished a 12-week reading and discussion of The Merchant of Venice, plus a post-discussion and film viewing.

We thought we knew the play. We thought we understood what was going on. But in the process of going so slowly and looking at the text so carefully, we learned so much.

We saw how the themes and motifs and parallels throughout the entire play are set up for us in the very first scene.

The heightened speech vs. the naturalistic speech gave us clues about who was being insincere and when, all throughout the play.

The soliloquies gave us insights into the truths the characters spoke, so when they said something contradictory later, we knew what to believe.

Noticing how people address each other (by the respectful/formal “you” or the informal/intimate or inferior “thee”) showed us how the characters' attitudes toward each other shifted through their scenes.

Studying articles by various scholars and critics opened our eyes to the possibility that the Jew in this play is actually symbolic of the Puritans. The Puritans in Shakespeare's time were very powerful, very hated, and many of the direct comments about the Jewish people are documented from the time as being part of the Puritan way of life (usury, not eating with other sects of Christians, being called dogs, etc.). Because there were so few (if any) Jews in England at the time, it was much easier -- and much safer politically -- to attack Jews than to attack Puritans.

We also were aware that the play took place in Italy, where “Christians” were all Catholics. England at the time loathed Catholics. Are we actually reading about Catholics and Puritans? The possibility underlies the play.

The atrocious behavior of the “Christians” throughout the play (which we kept track of on a chart) contributes to the idea that one possible theme of this play is “Christians Behaving Badly.” As opposed to Christopher Marlowe’s play, The Jew of Malta, where the Jew is evil and poisons nuns and arranges murders, Shylock does nothing bad except disingenuously arrange a bond for a pound of flesh.

We were able to look specifically at the way the author endears us to Shylock, making us uncomfortable with both loving and hating him. We see how Salanio twists the knife in Shylock when his daughter runs away. We see Shylock's countryman Tubal appear to further his own grudge against Antonio -- “your daughter, Antonio, your daughter, Antonio” -- until Shylock’s pain from his daughter is conflated with Antonio's bond.

In paying attention to parallels in the play, we saw that Shylock’s conflation of his ducats and his daughter is paralleled with Antonio's conflation of “my purse, my person” and Bassanio’s conflation of Portia’s wealth and virtue.

The parallels also appear in the parent/child relationships -- Jessica deceives her father, Launcelot deceives his father. Does this encourage us to believe that Portia deceives her father?

We were conscious of the theme of deceptive appearances that Shakespeare always uses in the plays and were intrigued to discover how many layers there were and how integrated all the deception was.

We were aware of the fact that Shakespeare likes to use “twin scenes,” and often a twin scene is of the actions of the “lower class” that reflects on the actions of the “upper class.” Looking at the scene of Launcelot and his father Old Gobbo, then, we learn what seems to be the playwright’s own commentary on the action, or at least a parody of it, carefully but richly couched in humor.

We spotted a number of motifs that thread through the play — hazard/risk/gambling; carrion death and carcasses; the idea of “fair” on many levels; the sea and its potential for wealth and destruction; the class system and the intrinsic nature that one person’s blood is better than another’s; racism and bigotry; control and who has it and who wants it and who gets it; oaths, most of which are insincere (except for Shylock's); rams and ewes and breeding; and more. We saw how these motifs unify the entire play and inform the action (and the reader).

Keeping track of Bassanio’s insincere oaths made us realize more clearly that the oaths he makes in the courtroom are just as empty and meaningless as the others. What does that say about him?

Contrary to what we might read in most books about Merchant, Belmont is not the land of love and light and women as opposed to the land of commerce and men in Venice — we found just as many terms of commerce and bondage in Belmont as we did in Venice.

In the trial scene, we counted ten times that Portia encouraged Shylock into believing he had a perfect case. We watched her carefully spin a web, and we were able to pinpoint exactly when she trapped him in a double trap, and then watched with amazement when she sprung her trap (after emotionally torturing Antonio and Bassanio).

We discussed with astonishment the “mercy” in the scene, and that Bassanio’s words come to haunt the courtroom: “In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt, but, being seasoned with a gracious voice, obscures the show of evil?” 3.2.76-78.

Looking at the “correspondences” in each play is extremely enlightening. Correspondences refer to the underlying meanings that surround every tree, rock, flower, herb, weed, animal, bird, mythological character, historical character, or named event that Shakespeare uses. By digging up the correspondence, we understand the subtle implications of the words used. For instance, there is a running thread throughout The Merchant of Venice of Jason and the Golden Fleece. Looking carefully at the actual mythological story, combined with the mentions in the play of Medea (who cheated her father to help Jason win the Golden Fleece), we can make an excellent case that Portia cheated her father and helped Bassanio choose the correct casket. Combine that with the parallels in the play of other children cheating their fathers, the bigotry toward “strangers” from outside Venice, Portia's comments (three times) that she would do anything rather than marry someone she didn't want to, and one has to wonder about the possibility that Shakespeare is trying to tell us that Portia is in charge of her own destiny.

The correspondence of the reference to Shylock’s countrymen Tubal and Chus also reinforces the idea that Shakespeare was using a Jew as a metaphor for Puritans because Tubal and Chus are not Jewish — Jews are descended from Noah’s oldest son, Shem; Tubal and Chus are descended from Shem’s brothers. Many critics think this is a mistake of Shakespeare’s, but — is it?

We paid particular attention to the fact that Portia gives Bassanio everything she has — on the condition that he not lose or give away the ring. Does that explain why she is downright cruel in trying to wrest the ring from him at the end of the trial? And after all, she does get the ring, emotionally tortures him some more, and finally gives the ring to Antonio to give back to Bassanio. She can now claim the right to exclaim on Bassanio, and essentially she has arranged for the return of her own power.

That made us look at Portia's role in this entire play. She has far more lines than any other character. We noticed she essentially orchestrated three trials — the casket trial, the courtroom trial, and the ring trial. Seeing that made us realize this play is more unified that we originally thought, especially seeing that most productions focus on Shylock and the courtroom scene and often cut many of Portia's lines. BUT that also made us look more carefully at the title of the play! The Merchant of Venice is neither Portia nor Shylock!

Whew. And we haven't even touched on all the things we learned about Antonio, his actions, his reactions, his relationship with Bassanio and with Portia, Portia's relationship with him, his actions in the courtroom (three times asking to die; comparing his love of Bassanio to Portia's love, etc.). And of Launcelot Gobbo’s place in the play and why do we learn that he got the Moor pregnant? Nor of what we learned by looking at the correspondences of the lovers that Jessica and Lorenzo discuss by moonlight. Nor of Gratiano's role, one who seems so brash and revolting but who has some of the most insightful speeches in the play. Nor have we mentioned the way this author swings us back and forth between liking characters and disliking them, admiring and despising them, rooting for them and rooting against them. Is Bassanio a gold-digger or does he really love Portia? Does Portia really like Bassanio or is she choosing someone she can control? Did Jessica and Lorenzo really go to Genoa and did she sell the turquoise ring for a monkey, or was Tubal just goading Shylock with his own agenda; after all, Lorenzo mentions in Act 5 that he and Jessica went from Venice to Belmont. And so much else!

 

No matter what we felt we resolved within ourselves or not, every one of us agreed that our awe and respect for this writer only increased by looking more carefully than we’ve ever done before. We now feel that we are Understanders — at least of one play! And we had a darned good time getting there.

Robin and Amy