Is The Merchant of Venice anti-Semitic?

One guess re the brevity of Mr. Pompey Bum's note, as we have learned to expect him to share more from the "great heap"(AS YOU LIKE IT) of his knowledge, is that he may not have read the play for some time. This seems to be common, that is, people stop by MV and then rush off, or return to the later plays ASAP. Shylock is then no more than a "bad example" and the play is bad. Once again, though, Romeo threatens to "sack the hateful mansion," that is, to kill himself with a knife or dagger(ROM3.3). This from a "virtuous and well-governed youth"(ROM1.4). Therefore, Shylock is dealing with common problems. As the ladies here have suggested, conflict is a convention in drama. In MV, the major conflict is between Antonio and Shylock. Also noted is the real question of who is most to blame.

No Stan. It was an inside joke having to do with your mention of a former member who was banned. It had nothing to do with the play or your opinions or you. Sorry to have hurt your feelings. I'm glad you enjoy my heaps, though. ;-)

Now I have it: Enter Jeeves and Wooster

As they .say, Yup, Shakespeare was good. And the conclusion of THE ODYSSEY was very very likely on his mind. Thanks for stopping by, guys.

We were talking about the origin of the pound of flesh, stanley2. I read more of the wikipedia article I cited earlier and apparently Shakespeare did not make it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_of_Venice

The forfeit of a merchant's deadly bond after standing surety for a friend's loan was a common tale in England in the late 16th century. In addition, the test of the suitors at Belmont, the merchant's rescue from the "pound of flesh" penalty by his friend's new wife disguised as a lawyer, and her demand for the betrothal ring in payment are all elements present in the 14th-century tale Il Pecorone by Giovanni Fiorentino, which was published in Milan in 1558. Elements of the trial scene are also found in The Orator by Alexandre Sylvane, published in translation in 1596. The story of the three caskets can be found in "Gesta Romanorum", a collection of tales probably compiled at the end of the 13th century.

Indeed, or yes. Early on, when I picked up some of the more famous plays for the first time, I remember the thought occurred, "There seems to be a source for EVERYTHING." And then he seems to have woven together more than one source, and sprinkled various things over it.

If makes me wonder if Shakespeare came up with any original plot.

The Merry Wives of Windsor and Love's Labour's Lost. Neither of his best.

So there you have it. The best answer to this thread's question is Mr. Yesno's username, YesNo. "Yes" won't work because one must attempt to pretend that Billy S. wrote nothing else, something I've attempted to do, which is , I'm fairly certain, impossible. "No
" won't work either because as Mr. Yesno noted, "people make mistakes." One mistake people make sometimes is being or feeling anti-everything. It seems that Antonio and Shylock feel that way a bit.

That is, some of us learn straight away that a first impression or single glimpse of a Shakespeare play, however interesting, doesn't work either. The thought that the conclusion of THE ODYSSEY is the major literary allusion in the play occurs a bit further down the road.

In Act 3,scene 3 we have Solanio's "I am sure the Duke / Will never grant this forfeiture to hold," and Antonio's reply: "The Duke cannot deny the course of law, / For the commodity that strangers have / With us in venice, if it be denied, / Will much impeach the justice of the state, / Since that the trade and profit of the city / Consisteth of all nations. Therefore, go. / These griefs and losses have so bated me, / That I shall hardly spare a pound of flesh / Tomorrow to my bloody creditor. / Well, gaoler, on. Pray God Bassanio come / To see me pay his dept, and then I care not!" What are we to make of this? Is Antonio suggesting that somewhere in the world bankers are allowed to murder their customers and therefore it should be so in Venice? Thus , Antonio is as goofy or melancholy as Shylock. They are both grieving the loss of Shylock's wife. There are other implications, to be sure, but if we compare the play to R&J and MND, the above is plain enough.

Dear stanley,
I don´t know what you mean with "R&J and MND", but Antonio is saying that Shylock´s demand is legal. I don´t think this particular passage has anything to do with Shylock´s wife. Antonio is mourning his own material losses and,I think, more implicitly the loss of Bassanio throug the latter´s marriage to Portia.

Eminent scholar J. Dover Wilson recommended comparing MV and ROMEO AND JULIET in his book SHAKESPEARE'S HAPPY COMEDIES. The passage before us corresponds to a passage in R&J. Juliet's line, "all men call thee fickle," corresponds to Antonio's "all nations." Just prior to Juliet's speech, Romeo departs for Mantua. Prior to Antonio's line, Shylock exits the scene. Shylock's next appearance is in the court scene. Further comparison results in more linguistic connections. To be continued.

I see, Stanley. There is the possibility of those minute comparisons, but I often don´t see much point in them. How does J. Dover Wilson justify them?

One minute subject at a time. Professor Thomas Parrott wrote that MV is "a romantic comedy, almost a fairy tale, rendered credible by the poet's art." In her book, THE FRIENDLY SHAKESPEARE, Norrie Epstein included an interview with an actor. She asked him if Antonio is gay. His reply, if memory serves, is "you're not to know, he's a puzzle at the center of the play." Antonio's "These griefs and losses" allows us to make up our own mind. In Act 3, scene 1, we learn that someone named Leah gave Shylock a ring. In Act 3, scene 2, Portia gives Bassanio a ring. In ROMEO AND JULIET, Act 3, scene 2, Juliet sends the Nurse to deliver a ring to Romeo. Romeo tells his man in Act 5, scene 3 that he intends to retrieve "a precious ring." Therefore, all the principal male characters in the two plays have been given a ring except Antonio. One may then argue that is because he is gay and loves Bassanio or he loved Leah who married Shylock.

Wilson's book is in a library miles away. I believe he simply wrote that comparison is "interesting" and both plays have tragical and comical elements. He also wrote that he found Shakespeare's sympathies were no less for Shylock than "the spitting Antonio." Perhaps this opinion is more likely if R&J is fresh in the mind of the reader. For example, Romeo's "The time and my intents are savage wild, / More fierce and more inexorable far / Than empty tigers or the roaring sea"(ROM5.3.37-9) clearly corresponds to lines from Antonio and Gratiano in Act 4, scene 1 of MV.

In Act 5, scene 3 of R&J, Romeo and Count Paris are both grieving the reported death of Juliet. They confront each other and Romeo kills Paris. In MV, we find Shylock and Antonio in confrontation. In the former, the reader knows that Juliet is still alive. In the latter, The characters know more than the reader regarding Shylock's wife. Therefore, one possibility is that, once again, both parties are grieving the loss of a lady and are rival lovers.

In the first scene of MV we find: "I pray you, good Bassanio, let me know it, / And if it stand as you yourself still do, / Within the eye of honor, be assured / My purse, my person, my extremest means / Lie all unlocked to your occasions." Therefore, Antonio is much concerned with the concept of "honor," as was Tybalt: "Now, by the stock and honor of my kin, / To strike him dead I hold it not a sin"(ROM1.5.60-1). Capulet responds to his nephew: "Why, how now, kinsman? "Wherefore storm you so?" In Act one, scene 3 of MV we have: "Why look you, how you storm!" We may then infer various things.

I feel we are having this discussion for years. If one concentrates to much on certain recurrent details present in several plays one loses the specificity of the play at hand. For example, this about Shylock´s deceased wife. Antonio had his prejudices. They would hardly allow him to fall in love with a Jewess.

There are three lines in KING LEAR that I like to recall. In the first scene, Kent says to Lear: "This is not altogether fool, my lord." Gloucester's last line is "And that's true too." In the last scene Lear says to Kent: "You are welcome hither." Documenting that Antonio is as goofy or melancholy as Shylock is specific to MV and is in keeping with Professor Wilson's comments(see note 176 above).

The line in KING LEAR from Kent is actually a bit later, Act 1 scene 4. Now, one comment earlier in this thread, "The arrogance(and stupidity) of the man is staggering.........What a twit!" might stimulate one to respond as it is about Antonio. Perhaps Professor Bevington's introduction to the play is the best. He uses the terms "paradox" and "undoubted ironies." The beginning of the play is also stimulating: "In sooth I know not why I am so sad............And such a want-wit sadness makes of me / That I have much ado to know myself." The phrase "want-wit" allows one to argue that Antonio finds himself "lacking in good sense"(Bevington's gloss). Professor Goddard's comments are also interesting as he suggested that Antonio's sadness may be in part attributable to a long standing romantic passion.

In his book THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE, Professor Kermode wrote of the trial or court scene: "The trial is folklore, and the judgment comes from a folklore lawyer, but the issues are real enough." Therefore, the scene is exciting. Further review, I think, allows one to suggest that only Shylock, Antonio and Portia make it so stimulating. The Duke gives us a clue regarding why he is allowing the case to be presented: "The world thinks, and I think so too, / That thou but lead'st this fashion of thy malice / To the last hour of act, and then 'tis thought / Thou'lt show thy mercy and remorse more strange / Than is thy strange and apparent cruelty"(4.1.16-20). That is, he hopes that the proceedings will resolve, at least in part, the conflict between Antonio and Shylock. When this is not happening, he turns things over to Portia. Her "the Venetian law / Cannot impugn you as you do proceed"(4.1.180-1), is one of the "thousand raw tricks"(3.4.77) that she warns us she may "practice." It also allows her famous "quality of mercy" speech that may be be intended to save the life of Shylock. Bassanio's "You shall not seal to such a bond for me!"(1.3.150) may mean simply that he regards the proposed terms as "bad form." Therefore, Shylock and Antonio alone regard the forfeiture to have any legal standing.

And Danik, one of your comments in kev67's Sonnet thread(5/13/2019) might remind one that "The lunatic, the lover, and the poet are / Are of imagination all compact" (MND5.1.7-8). Lancelet the clown is a kind of lover: "Adieu. Tears exhibit my tongue. Most beautiful pagan, most sweet Jew!...........these foolish drops do something drown my manly spirit"(MV2.3.10-14). In AS YOU LIKE IT, Rosalind says: "But cousin, what if we assayed to steal / The clownish fool out of your father's court? / Would he not be a comfort to our travail?"(AYL1.3.126-8). Celia replies: "He'll go along o'er the wide world with me." The clownish fool is Touchstone, whose speech sometimes echos that of Lancelet. Touchstone's call, "Holla, you, clown!"(AYL2.4.63) might recall Lancelet's "Sola, sola! Wo ha ho! sola, sola!(MV5.1.39). And who do we find speaking with Jessica in the scene right before the trial scene? It is Lancelet, and therefore the author does suggest what I have set forth.

I don´t remember my comment any more, stanley. My point about Shakespeare with you is, that one can compare his works minutely, but without disregarding the specificity of each text.

I'll try to do so. I remember your comment as it is part of a very fine discussion of the Sonnets and pointed the way back to AS YOU LIKE IT. Your comment(#172) here that Antonio is saying that Shylock's demand is legal brings about the question of why does he say so. Back in the first scene of the play Solanio says "Why, then you are in love." His reply, "Fie, fie!," has been glossed as the first hint that he is gay. He may instead prefer not to confess an adulterous desire that he is ashamed of. If this desire was for Shylock's wife, we then have yet another motive for revenge. We then might ask again why Portia suggests that Shylock's demand is legal: "A pound of that same merchant's flesh is thine. The court awards it, and the law doth give it"(4.1.297-8). One answer is that it is allowed by the fairy story element of the play. Another, then, is that Portia, who seems to know everything that's going on in Venice, is aware that Antonio desired Shylock's wife and therefore recommends mercy.

Thanks for considering my comment, stanley. As I stated already I don´t think that the enmity between Shylock and Antonio has anything to do with Shylocks deceased wife. The reasons for the hatred, to my mind, are, on both sides, prejudice and commercial usages. Shylock states explicitly: “I hate him for he is a Christian, / But more for that in low simplicity/ He lends out money gratis and brings down/The rate of usance here with us in Venice”.

In regard to Antonio´s love life I am more inclined to think that he has a love interest in Bassanio.

I caught a performance of the 1994 Goodman Theatre production in Chicago. One critic wrote: "At it's best a fascinating mess." The actor playing Antonio was excellent, however. At one point there was a pause in the dialogue. From where I sat though, Antonio and Bassanio were hidden by stage props. I then said to myself: "Oh! Antonio MAY be gay!" Since then I've encountered nothing to counteract the thought that this was surely the author's intention. On the other hand, one of the comments here from a while back reads: "There are so many ways to look at the play that I'm not sure Shakespeare himself quite had the whole situation sorted out." Shylock's lines, "I hate him for he is a Christian / But more"MV1.3.39-40) recall Romeo's "Here's much to do with hate, but more with love. / Why then, O brawling love, O loving hate, / O anything, of nothing first created! / O heavy lightness, serious vanity, / Misshapen chaos of well-seeming forms........"(Rom1.1.178-182).

We may both be in the ballpark, so to speak, regarding Antonio: "Two loves I have of comfort and despair, / Which like two spirits do suggest me still: / The better angel is a man right fair, / The worser spirit a woman colour'd ill......."(Sonnet 144). The terms of the bond are first proposed "in a merry sport"(MV1.3.144!).

And thanks, Danik, for pointing the way back to Portia: "Tarry a little, there is something else"(MV4.1.302). Or, as Professor Mahon put it: "Again, the most effective readings, of whatever 'school,' take the entire play into account." The late Professor Bloom wrote that the play is "endlessly ironic." Thus we find Nick Bottom, once again: "And yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together nowadays. The more pity that some honest neighbors will not make them friends."(A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM,3.1.138-140). This is from the adulterous episode between Bottom and Titania.

You may be right, Stanley, but the fact is I still think Shylocks deceased wife doesn´t have anything to do with the hatred between merchant and usurer.

As for Portia, I think she went to Venice not only to save Antonio, but also to clear the ambiguous situation between Antonio, Bassanio and herself. It is in this light that I read the humdrum about the rings. Besides testing how important Antonio was for Bassanio, Portia elicited a second pledge from Antonio, that he would warrant Bassanio´s fidelity to her.So Portia killed two hares at a stroke, without being too obvious. She showed what might happen to Bassanio, if he broke his faith to her and she pledged the word of Antonio, incidentally the only one in behalf of who Bassanio might be faithless to herself.

A great while ago, Professor Parrott wrote that the Sonnets were mostly written "somewhere between 1594 and 1598; some, it may be, later." This is exactly the period when MND, R&J and MV were written. "Shakespeare followed the fashion, but as usual he followed it in his own way.......The conventional lament that mourns an unrequited love is altogether absent......after a brief period of alienation the poet forgives and rejoins his friend, assured, as a man of the Renaissance would be, that true friendship is a purer, loftier thing than woman's love." In the last scene of MV we find: "I am the unhappy subject of these quarrels"(MV5.1.238). The line just before reads: "For if I do, I'll mar the young clerk's pen." Gratiano's remark is glossed by Professor Bevington: "With sexual double meaning." There are plenty of these double meanings in R&J: "Draw thy tool, here comes of the house of Monatagues"(ROM1.1.30"). As many of us first encounter in CLIFF'S NOTES, Romeo's last lines are more "womanish"(ROM3.3.110) than Juliet's. Therefore, Antonio's "with all brief and plain conveniency / Let me have judgement and the Jew his will"(MV4.1.82-3) allows us to identify his passion with Romeo's. Shylock's "That I follow thus / A losing suit against him"(MV4.1.61), corresponds to Juliet's "And learn me how to lose a winning match(ROM3.2.12), thus indirectly suggesting Romeo's passion. As Isaac Asimov noted, the effects of the "distilling liquor"(ROM4.1.95) that the Friar gives Juliet are fictional, that is, have not occurred in nature. Therefore, we might pardon Romeo for killing himself.

But when you take these sentences out of their original context, they can be read in several ways, can´t they, Stanley?

The truth. Here in the Chicago area we've had Roman Catholic holy man Cardinal Cupich performing on Sunday mornings on television for a half hour. If you type in "the who, live at leeds, tommy, go to the mirror," and turn the volume to a middle level, you may agree that the lines "What is happening in his head" and "from you I get the story" might be read as inspired, in part, by studying Shakespeare. Shakespearean baseball fans(I'm referring to Canadian entertainers Wayne and Shuster's comedy sketch from the 1950's) such as myself may find that we are upset with the performance of our team in MV. That is, if the play is simply team Shylock verses team Antonio, we are not happy(Hawkman's "What a twit!," quoted above, is one example). Ron Rosenbaum and the late Harold Bloom are and were fans of team Shylock.

I´m afraid, I didn´t understand you. Did you get the impression that for me MV is just Shylock x Antonio?

In post #192, you mention "original context." I noted that the phrase "merry sport" is found in Act 1, scene 3. Therefore, why did Shakespeare put it there? I've been suggesting that context is one way to study this play. In Act 4, scene 1, Antonio says: "bid her be judge / Whether Bassanio had not once a love"(MV4.1.272-3). I pointed out that in Sonnet 144 the poet says the very same thing. In Sonnet 20, we find: "Till nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting,........./ But since she prick'd thee out for women's pleasure, / Mine be thy love, and thy love's use their treasure." In Sonnet 128, the poet envies the wooden keys on a musical instrument that one of his two loves is playing as they get to touch her fingers. In the conclusion we find: "Since saucy jacks so happy are in this, / Give them thy fingers, me thy lips to kiss. " Therefore, it is more likely that Antonio desires sex with women. The fairy story element of the play allows us to, as you suggest, read the matter as we like.

I´m no native, Stanley, but I suppose, Shakespeare uses the expression "merry sport" as a synonym of "merry game" in a playful sense. He is not referring to the modern sport categories, I think.

During the play within the play in MND we have: "The best in this kind are but shadows; and the worst are no worse, if imagination amend them," and Hippolyta's reply, "It must be your imagination then, and not theirs"(MND5.1.210-11). In the Prince's speech that concludes R&J we have: "Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things"(R&J5.3.307). In this thread we have from Hawkman: "Shylock's interaction with Antonio constitutes the drama of the piece. It's what drives the plot forward." From Charles D. we have: "The love story is the driving point of the play."

I think, we have at least two stories in MV: The hate and revenge story of Antonio and Shylock and the love story of Bassanio and Portia. But you could also say that there are two love stories: the love story of Antonio and Bassanio and the love story of Bassanio and Portia.

Another puzzle we have is how did Portia and her cousin prepare for the court appearance? Bellario's letter to the Duke reads: "We turned o'er many books together"(MV4.1.156). On the other hand, when Portia says "Tarry a little," she may be reviewing her cousin's "notes"(3.4.51). Much more certain is Antonio's "You may as well go stand upon the beach / And bid the main flood bate his usual height; / You may as well use question with the wolf"(MV4.1.71-3) and Gratiano's "O, be thou damned, inexecrable dog!"(4.1.128). Some editors replace "inexecrable" with "inexorable". Inexecrable is in keeping with Bassanio's "Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing"(1.1.114). These lines are clearly intended to recall Romeo's lines to his man in the last scene of R&J(see post #176).

.

A good question that, stanley. The play doesn´t make that clear, but I suppose that Portia was instructed privately or even at a law university. Portia was intelligent and avid of knowledge. And it is very possible that she was prepared to administrate her wast inheritance. Law is a complex subject and just reading her cousins notes wouldn´t enable a brilliant court defence.