Shylock in William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice An ogre is according to the Collins Dictionary “a monstrous or cruel being” but more significantly as “something or someone who eats human flesh.” Is this how Shylock is portrayed in the play or is he a simple human being, a species capable of showing emotions and feelings such as vulnerability and love. Certainly, Shylock is presented to the audience in so powerful a way that even though he only appears in five scenes, many consider him the central character. Throughout the play Shylock appears to be the butt of all the jokes and many critics see his status in the play as the tragic hero. In this play Shakespeare achieves the near impossible because for most of Shylock’s scenes, one can have as many as three interpretations for its meaning and as displayed by the title, the reader has to decide for themselves as to how they will interpret Shakespeare’s descriptions. During the play we find that the odds are stacked against Shylock. My opinion on this is that Shakespeare did not want to be seen as a pro-Jew or siding with the “enemy” so he gave in and sided with the majority of his prospective audience’s beliefs and views on Jews. Personally I do believe that Shylock is in fact a mixture of both an ogre and a human because I have to give my interpretations according to the text as it is the subject of my piece. During the play many lines and scenes are related to ogres or similar creatures. Firstly I will deal with the point I made at the beginning about the human flesh reference. As you know the main and central storyline to the play is the bond betwe... ... middle of paper ... ...now go on to comment on one of the rare moments in the play where we see a partly human side to side to Shylock. This is the speech which he makes claiming that Antonio has thwarted for one simple reason that he was a Jew. Shylock might actually have some justification in this statement as we have no evidence that Antonio is any less anti-Semitic than the rest of his fellow Venetians. He then points out that he is as much a human as any other man. Yet many critics and commentators on the play believe that this is not a plea for equality but to justify his imminent revenge. In conclusion, throughout this play we discover Shylock has as many faces and personas as a Mexican wrestler. We have quite literally seen the good, the bad and the ugly which makes this character so powerful and the focal point of the play.
Throughout the play, Shylock was often reduced to something other than Human. In many cases, even the simple title of "Jew" was stripped away, and Shylock was not a man, but an animal. For example, Gratiano curses Shylock with "O, be thou damned, inexecrable dog!" (IV, i, 128) whose "currish spirit govern'd a wolf" (IV, i, 133-134) and whose "desires are wolvish, bloody, starved, and ravenous" (IV, i, 137-138). Or when Shylock is neither a man nor an animal, he becomes "a stony adversary, inhuman wretch" (IV, i, 4-5). When the Christians applied these labels to Shylock, they effectively stripped him of his humanity, of his religious identity; he was reduced to something other than human.
‘villain’; he is a complex mix of both. In the first part of the play,
In Act 1 Scene 3, we are first introduced to Shylock, we see him as
...killful writer rising a case that can be a subject for many interpretations and not necessarily revealing a specific view of its writer, however it aims to convey a certain moral to the readers. Therefore, the character of shylock, being stereotyped or not, with its controversy is a tool manipulated to convey a moral message: when people live in a society that is open to cultural diversity and that values the contributions of all society members - regardless of cultural and ethnic backgrounds, race, life styles, and belief – they will be one step closer to living in a civil society.
The Merchant of Venice is a play that deals with an assortment of issues that range from politics to racial views of the Jewish people. An embodiment of these two issues can be best attributed to the character of Shylock. In a 2004 production of The Merchant of Venice, by Michael Radford, we see the character of Shylock is portrayed in a different light than that of Shakespeare's 1594 villainous Jew. Both productions pose a series of questions in comparison. An understanding of the era that these plays were written in and the audience’s perception of the production attribute greatly to a true analysis. Another aspect of these productions asks who Shylock was to Shakespeare and who he has developed into for Al Pacino and Michael Radford.
However, Pacino’s portrayal of Shylock can give the viewer a false impression of the character’s calm, kind, and generous quality. Despite Pacino’s portrayal, a reader of the play may automatically receive a negative impression of Shylock from analyzing Shakespeare’s figurative language. In Shylock’s perspective, he deploys his appearance to deceive Antonio and Bassanio, which allows him to fulfill his revenge on Antonio. As Shylock informs Jessica of his dinner plans with the Christians, he implies, “I am not bid for love. They flatter me. But yet I’ll go in hate to feed upon the prodigal Christian” (Act II, sc v 11-15). Through Pacino’s portrayal, the viewer can indicate that Shylock attends the dinner to seek information of the Christian’s future plans. Although Shylock’s qualities may give the viewer and reader a false impression of his character, his subtle actions verify that appearance holds a higher place over
This is where Shakespeare evokes our sympathy, by making us realise how Shylock has suffered because of the prejudices of the Christians around him. He explains his motives for revenge in a rational way, showing how his actions are no different from the Christians'. Look carefully at the language he uses, as well as the insulting and mocking language used by the other two. At the end of the scene, Shylock mourns the loss of his daughter, although our feelings towards him are a bit mixed, for he seems to care more about the money. He does give evidence, however, of his love for his wife, which again, creates sympathy.
... is simply a text about a villainous Jew that is eventually “conquered” by his conversion, it is more rewarding to view it as a treatise on the fallibility of stereotypes since we are allowed to understand that Shylock’s actions are more a result of his anger at insult rather than because of something inherent in his nature. Similarly, we see that Othello’s final “savage” act of murdering his wife was not because he was inherently barbarous due to his color, but simply because he was driven to this final act because of base trickery. In light of this, it should also be stated that Shakespeare doesn’t attempt to form the idea that the white characters are any better than those who are subject to the discrimination. They are also, in both texts, prone to malice, trickery, and falsehood—perhaps even more so than those whom they detest simply because they are different.
All of the characters are defined through Shylock. Launcelot Gobbo, Shylock’s servant, treats his father disrespectfully, but this disdain is not ill-received by the audience; like the other examples of inequity, Launcelot’s apathetic attitude toward his near-blind father is inexplicably tolerated by past and contemporary society (Picker). Launcelot’s contempt is generally assumed to be a result of his underprivileged upbringing, if it is noted at all. His lack of education has deprived him from good manners as well as good sense. The scene itself initially seems inconsistent with the rest of the play.
William Shakespeare shows how two tradesmen can have completely different lives when others view them differently in the play The Merchant of Venice. In the play, Bassanio, Antonio’s friend, needs money to pursue his love. They seek a loan from Shylock, a Jewish moneylender in Antonio’s name. The contract is for three times the value of the bond in three months or else Shylock cuts off a pound of flesh from Antonio. While all this is happening, there are love plots going on. One of which is for Shylock’s daughter to elope with Lorenzo, a Christian. Later on, Antonio’s source of money, his ship, is reported sunken in the English Channel, dooming him to the loss of one pound of his flesh. There is a trial on the bond, and when it seems sure that Antonio will die, Portia, disguised as a doctor of laws legally gets Antonio out of the situation and Shylock recieves harsh penalties. Antonio and Shylock, two similar businessmen of Venice, are viewed differently and are treated oppositely to heighten the drama of the play and mold a more interesting plot.
To make the claim that Shakespeare creates Shylock within an anti-Semitic culture, and therefore invests Shylock with biased anti-Semitic attributes, does not impugn the artistry of the drama. Nor does such a claim implicate Shakespeare himself as a monstrous anti-Semite. All this claim suggests is that Shakespeare, like most of the rest of his society, was hostile toward Jewry for religious and cultural reasons, and that hostility is revealed most clearly in Shylock.
Shylock is a wealthy Jew who invests money into shipments and trades. When Shylock’s enemy, Antonio, requests a loan of 3000 ducats, “Shylock adopts this Christian model of "kind" lending in his bond with Antonio as a means for lawful revenge.” Shylock’s agreement is that if the ducats are not returned, Antonio must repay his loan in human flesh. This is a way for Shylock to either make money or kill a Christian, either will satisfy him. Lee describes Shylock’s feelings towards Christians, “Indeed, although Shylock will neither "eat," "drink," nor "pray" with the Christians, he is willing to "buy" and "sell" with them.” This is where Shakespeare first introduces the devil inside Shylock. Had Antonio been a Jew, there would not have been a payment of flesh. Shylock’s hatred propels the story from start to finish. His hatred causes him to lose his daughter, drives Portia to use her money and wit to save Antonio, and why he ends up losing
Shylock, in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, epitomizes emotion unrestricted by moral character or intellectual rationality. Shylocks' conversation at the beginning of act four, scene one clearly demonstrates this as the Duke and Antonio urge Shylock to use both his empathetic and rational abilities. Shylock’s humanity, a trait which would normally allow him to feel empathy, is doubted by Antonio who describes Shylock as. By calling him "stony" and "inhuman" and "empty," Antonio draws attention to Shylock’s clear lack of empathy and humanity, and furthermore, suggests that Shylock is deeply and inherently evil, describing him as something monstrous or animalistic.
In this essay I will try to discover is Shylock a villain or a victim, in the William Shakespeare play “A Merchant of Venice”
There can be many similarities drawn to both the character Shylock in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, and Barabas in the Jew of Malta. However besides the obvious fact that they were both Jews, and the common stereo-types that were attributed to both of them such as being miserly and conniving, there are gaping differences in the dynamics of the characters themselves. “There are profound differences in Barabas and Shylock. The role assigned to by Shakespeare to his Christian characters is far more extensive, his Jew on the other hand has been scaled down and domesticated. Shylock has none of the insatiable ambition that makes Barabas for all his grotesque acts, a character along the lines of the great Faustus and Tambourlaine.”(Shylock,21) There is a much greater roundness in Barabas then Shylock. Marlowe portrays Barabas the Jew in a dynamic and somewhat curios manner. It is difficult to surmise Marlowe’s intent when portraying the Jew, yet it is certain that there is more than what seems topically apparent. It is very clear that he is an outsider, not only in the obvious aspect that he is a Jew in the less than theologically tolerant and politically correct Elizabethan drama, but he is also an outsider in terms of evil and his mode of thought. He is obviously a villain, lying cheating, poisoning a entire nunnery, even killing those we thought were close to him, including his daughter, yet through his Machiavellan quest for power and riches we somehow become almost endeared to him and he becomes an anti-hero. All these aspects combine to make Barabas a character that we are somehow drawn to in the same way people are drawn to stare at a traffic accident...