“Iewe of Venyce” (What do u people think?)

[Eivy]

I was looking through this other book on “The Merchant of Venice” and as I was going through its history, in the introduction part, I noticed that it said that “The Merchant of Venice” wasn’t the books original name! It was written that first the play was called “Iewe of Venyce”. And that later it changed to “The Book of the Merchant of Venyce” and shortly after that it was given the name that we still use today, “The Merchant of Venice”.

So when Shakespeare first finished writing the play, he intended to show that the play was all about him! But then as they changed the name to “The Merchant of Venice”, they moved the whole story towards Antonio (who is said to be the wealthiest merchant of Venice and as they thought “merchant” in Venice meaning only the wealthiest merchant). They thought it was obvious Shakespeare was pointing towards him but isn’t Shylock a merchant in Venice as well?!? Well, I kinda get it now (or maybe I don’t) because Shakespeare wanted to see Shylock and Antonio as main characters (I guess). So, the whole story, or may I say play, is about these two characters and the grudge between them.

I’m not all that sure if Shakespeare wanted to show the point of view of the of people in his time period and how they were anti-Semitic or was he anti-Semitic himself?!? Whatever it was I guess it is pretty obvious from the history of the text that Shakespeare meant Shylock to be the motive of his play. But later on Shylock and Antonio became the two main characters around which the story of the play as well as the other characters and their happenings revolved. So I guess Bassanio is a mere excuse for the bond!

I dunno, this is so confusing, so could you plz gimme your opinion on this and what really is true the play pointing towards Antonio and Bassanio or Antonio and Shylock. I do understand the Antonio and Bassanio part but after reading what I mentioned above I got confused!

Since everyone hates Shylock and he ends up the only one not having a good fortune or a happy ending, so don’t you think the play might be about him?
Ahhhh I don’t know, plz help! I’m not sure if I explained what I wanted to say properly but I hope you understand. I’m groping around when I’ve got questions about Shakespeare!

Sorry for annoyin you with all my questions but this, as you may know is my first time studying Shakespeare’s play and every time I read somthin new about it, I have to ask questions or else it eats me inside out! (if u know what I mean) lol

Hey would anyone recommend watching the movie and if so which one, the BBC production or the new one?

[trinityshiva]

In my opinion the right way of arriving at a conclusion about a Hero or the villain of any play, at first we must examine the theme of the play. In case of merchant of Venice in my opinion Shakespeare had tried to juxtapose “the human greed and meanness” along side “the human generosity and the spirit of sacrifice”. Similarly when you take a close look at “Julius Caesar”, there you find “the republicanism” juxtaposed with the “imperialism”. Now coming back to merchant of Venice, as you said, they both are merchants by their vocation but when we put these two under the microscopic view of the social assessment, analysis or verification you would conclude that “Shylock” is projected as the embodiment of human greed and meanness while “Antonio” was projected as the embodiment of human generosity, service and sacrifice. Society from the times immemorial had considered the people who exhibit generosity or service and sacrifice as the Hero and glorified them while the greedy and cruel people were considered as Villains and deplores them to carry down the annals of the history as Villains. Only if you children get used to look at a play holding it by the theme you would not be confused and you would logically elaborate it if one disputes with you. Whenever there is a literary dispute only the logic plays the pivotal role and prevails on this world for centuries. One can put an end to an argument only with logical reasoning. Say, there is dispute about an object whether it is a circle or a triangle and you may call it a circle while I call it a triangle and to solve this dispute between us two one has to go by the mathematical parameters and look at the object and hold you correct if the object is of 360 degrees or conversely if it is 180 degrees one would hold me correct. Apart from this I think there cannot be any other remedy to exist. I dispute with the arguments some people advance that we should judge Shakespeare’s plays by going after the aspect that Julius Caesar is hero because the story revolves around him. In my opinion the theme is the only primary aspect and the playwright with this theme in mind utilizes some characters to promote his theme so we should not look at an individual character and try to assess the issue. Now you may ask me a question as to why Shakespeare had used the title Julius Caesar then I would say that Title is altogether different from the word Hero and they should not be looked upon as synonyms. Can you show me one thesaurus which projects these two as synonyms? Well when it comes to the title the argument that entire play revolves round Julius Caesar. Here you must understand that Julius Caesar is the source of dispute and from that dispute emanate two aspects as I said earlier i.e. the aspects of imperialism versus republicanism. Can you explain me why Shakespeare had preferred the “The merchant of Venice” why not the name of one character of the playas it had been in case of Julius Caesar? Secondly can you answer me if I ask you as to why Shakespeare had chosen title Macbeth? Will you convince me that he is the Hero of the play if I call him a villain? If you feel and assess me as a good teacher, especially the age groups of 12 to 20, please contact me by posting your query on the forum and if there is a sense of urgency look for me on the yahoo 360 and haul me back to the forum.
God bless you.