Content Objectives
Problem Play? Purposeful not Problematic
“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” - William Shakespeare, Hamlet
Though the play is problematic for scholars regarding where it belongs in the Shakespearean genre mix, as it is not quite a comedy in the same way that A Midsummer Night’s Dream is, for example, I will be taking the position that modern scholars’ classification as a problem comedy is purposeful for class discussion when working with high school students. As the last lines elapse in The Merchant of Venice, there is no death in the tangible sense of body count; however, one can argue that there is loss of of identity and faith, in Shylock’s case. Also, although lovers reunite and marriages are intact, not all loose ends are neatly tied at the conclusion. Readers are left wondering what is to happen to Shylock, as he must endure a living death of sorts. Additionally perplexing is what one is to do with Antonio because although his flesh is spared and he learns of his ships arriving safely, his original source of melancholy is still ever-present. Looking closer at the marital unions, even those are left with cracks in the foundation as there are seeds of mistrust planted, so there are no true ‘happy endings’. It is the very problematic elements that distinguish this play as intriguing and complex.
Decision Making & Fatedness as a Scapegoat
“All that glisters is not gold.” - William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
The most apparent starting point to discuss decision making in The Merchant of Venice is with the three caskets. Looking specifically at the inscriptions and the logic each suitor used in their choosing will need close examination, but also significant is the reaction each suitor has and how often an undesired outcome is blamed on fate or fortune instead of on oneself. A clear lack of self-examination is pervasive in these scenes. First, the reader is introduced to the Prince of Morocco, who says, “Some god direct my judgment! Let me see; I will survey the inscriptions back again...” (II,vi,13).2 It is noteworthy that he calls on a higher power to guide his decision and then goes into his own reasons for his selection; whatever his weaknesses, he is not blaming fate exclusively. Looking at the Prince of Arragon’s attempt, the concepts of fate, luck, and chance become more prominent. He states, “Lastly, if I do fail in fortune of my choice, immediately to leave you and be gone.” (II, ix,13). As a forewarning of a wrong choice, he in a sense establishes that it will be as a result of fortune. Interestingly, the only suitor who makes no mention to fate or fortune is Bassanio. He is resolute in his reasoning and steadfast in making a choice in spite of Portia’s encouragement to take his time. In the case of the three caskets, it is in fact Portia who has no real agency. She is at the mercy of her deceased father’s will and her lack of power is illustrated in her comment, “Besides, the lott’ry of my destiny bars me the right of voluntary choosing…” (II, i,15).
Another important example of questionable decision making is Antonio’s choice to loan Bassanio three thousand ducats given that his assets were tied up in ships that were underway. Immediately, the adage of not spending money one does not have comes to mind. If not blinded by his affinity for Bassanio, he likely would have not made that choice given the need to do financial dealings with Shylock. Fortune’s double meaning comes to light most clearly with Antonio as it means both money and fate and the juxtaposition of its use in his lines is worth noting. The last mention of fortune from him is as follows, “Grieve not that I am fall’n to this for you for herein Fortune shows herself more kind…” (IV, i,263). It is here that he is trying to lessen Bassanio’s guilt because in truth had it not been for his request, Antonio would not be facing death in this moment, so he displaces responsibility from both himself and Bassanio. Instead, it is Fortune to whom he attributes his circumstance and is positive in the outcome as he says it will avoid the problem of a rich man outliving his wealth.
It is important to take a close look at a character’s choices and questionable decision making because of their direct relevancy to my students. Often my students, and their national counterparts, make choices and displace responsibility for those decisions by simply attributing them to powers bigger than themselves. If my students can be critical of a character’s choice, we can begin to build awareness of the choices they are making in their own life. For example, I can recall a student being incensed at a store owner for calling the police when he was caught stealing, resulting in the student’s arrest. He felt that there had been unjust harshness, but never looked at the original action as a fault on his part. Fate, fortune, or higher powers of any sort should not be allowed to serve as scapegoats, and that lesson can begin if we first start with the actions of fiction’s characters and then slowly transition to the critical analysis of one’s own actions. There will be an abundance of present day connections and reflections to bring this connection to life in the classroom, and more detail can be found in the activities section of this unit.
Façades as Deceit
“But love is blind, and lovers cannot see the pretty follies that themselves commit.” - William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
Examining facades as tools for intentional deceit will get a close examination by looking at the need to borrow money to create the appearance of wealth for personal gain. Concerning Bassanio specifically, the façade is for the purpose of romantic and financial gain. It should be noted that the idea of appearance verses inner wealth is related here but will translate to the discussion of race, stereotype, and prejudice in more detail later in the unit. I want to take a special pause to examine facades because of their close relation to the life my students lead. The idea of ‘putting up a front’ is something they grapple with often. For purposes of survival, often I see my students creating a façade to hide what they are lacking. Yet to complicate this idea further, they are often shamed for being fake to any degree, so this delicate balance is tough to navigate, and Bassanio’s need to borrow money to appear that he is more financially sound than he is in actuality will resonate greatly.
Again, looking specifically at the façade of wealth Bassanio originally presents to Portia gives rise to questions like, is his love true if one of the chief purposes of courting Portia was to rid himself of debt? As proof, one may examine the exchange between him and Antonio when he first requests the loan: “…and from your love I have a warranty to unburthen all my plots and purposes how to get clear of all the debts I owe” (Act I, i,132). It is a question of motivation. Further examining facades, one may look at the many instances of cross dressing where women disguise themselves for various aims, both selfish and unselfish. Jessica deceives the townspeople. Portia and Nerissa deceive the court.
Transvestism is employed throughout Shakespearean plays and when teaching his works, one should take pause to highlight the conventions of the time in which a young boy actor would be charged with the role of a female character. Therefore, an added level of façade is present because in actuality one has a boy actor playing the character of a woman who is acting like a man, and this should not be lost on modern audiences as it pushes the idea of façades and gender bending to the forefront. In The Merchant of Venice, transvestism is usually pointing to the assertion of one’s self, with the small exception of Nerissa, as she is mostly acting as a follower instead of employing the deception of cross dressing for gain. To break out of the social confines given by gender, cross-dressing becomes a means to an end.
Transvestism creates power positions for the woman of Shakespeare, allowing them to fluidly move in the patriarchal society. It is also noteworthy that often times, these women put on the clothes of a man of lower rank than themselves, but it is the disguise of a man itself that provides the access one would otherwise not be granted. By contrast, in The Merchant of Venice and throughout Shakespeare, there are no instances of male characters disguising themselves as women as there is no need for his men to assert power by this means. In The Merchant of Venice, female cross-dressing highlights tension in general. In Jessica’s case, for example, it highlights the tension involved in the shift from one religion to another and her means of physically traversing from one world to the other. To translate this idea for the student of today, one should discuss clothing as a means to identity and examine how often students create a façade to break the social confines they find themselves in. Though the act of putting on the dress of the opposite gender is not commonplace, the reason one might do so should resonate.
Usury of Then = The Payday Loan of Today
“Money is a good soldier, sir, and will on.” –William Shakespeare, The Merry Wives of Windsor
Usury, as it is listed in today’s dictionary, is defined as “the practice of lending money and requiring the borrower to pay a high amount of interest” (Merriam-Webster). To understand the context of the play, however, one must look at the Christian prohibition against usury that was foundational in the creation of laws at the time when The Merchant of Venice is set. These laws use scripture as evidence, specifically Leviticus 25: 35-37 in conjunction with Luke 6:27.3 First, Leviticus states:
And if your brother becomes poor, and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall maintain him; as stranger and sojourner he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or increase, but fear your God; that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit.
It is the above scripture, combined with Luke 6:27, which states not only that Christians should treat all men as brothers, but they should “love their enemies,” that laid the foundation for divisive laws in the Middle Ages. When those in the Catholic Church were outlawed for lending money with interest, the remaining money lenders were then nearly all Jewish, for whom there was no scriptural prohibition, and indeed rather perhaps even scriptural encouragement, as Shylock’s interpretation of the story of Jacob and Laban may indicate. To further understand Christian attitudes toward usury stemming from the Medieval period, one may consider the placement of (Catholic) usurers in Dante’s hell, where they’re placed far down in the inner ring of the seventh circle.
Shakespeare takes the practice of usury and makes it a central point of tension in The Merchant of Venice. Upon first read, today’s student may not understand why Shylock’s line of business is aligned with that of prostitution or blasphemous misconduct, but given some historical context, an understanding can be reached. Once students understand the historical context, they will better understand the actions of the play, and begin to connect its belief system to the real lives they lead, which will help them see that the text is a living one with current applications. A rich area of connection is examining predatory credit lending in conjunction with ‘the other,’ as it should resonate as a contemporary conflict, given the predominance of check cashing and payday loans on the corners of many lower income neighborhoods. Additionally useful in emphasizing usury in The Merchant of Venice is the opportunity to provide life skills by looking at interest rates on credit cards and loans that the students will likely be offered once they are 18 and often before leaving high school. In this unit, students will calculate interest rates applied if using a check cashing service, credit card payment calculations, and student loan interest rates, with their long term outcomes. In The Merchant of Venice, Antonio agreed to the terms of an outlandish loan because he was confident of future earnings, and my students can learn from his mistake. Here is a real world lesson to be learned, together with a wonderful opportunity to do some cross-curricular study using economics and math.
What’s in a Name?
“You scullion! You rampallian! You fustilarian! I’ll tickle your catastrophe!” -William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part II
Referring to one’s given name implies that there is thought and reason behind the naming. The name is ‘given;’ it is in fact decided upon by someone. We all have one. We are called by it, and it is intertwined in the fabric of our identity. So, what happens when we are called anything but our given name? What psychological impact ensues as a result? A close study of naming and the absence of a proper name will serve as an introduction to the prejudice in The Merchant of Venice and as a point of entry to discuss the anti-Semitism that makes this a controversial text.
Beast, villain, fool, prodigal, wretch, devil, want-wit, pranting boy, and cutthroat dog are just some of the words used by the characters of The Merchant of Venice in reference to others. In fact, Shakespeare is known for the beauty and craft of his insults, but it is interesting that The Merchant of Venice lacks gusto in its name-calling, compared to many of his other works. One explanation for this lack of gusto is that serious issues of religion and identity are hiding behind the name-calling and insult hurling. We can begin with Shylock when he states, “Thou call'dst me dog before thou hadst a cause/ But, since I am a dog, beware my fangs” (III, iii,7). In the teaching of the text, handling the issue of anti-Semitism with care, it feels appropriate to start with this quote to emphasize Shylock as a round character who is reacting to the systematic oppression of which he is a victim. My students are extremely familiar with the phrase, ‘hurt people hurt people,’ and will likely see Shylock’s steadfast commitment to his bond with a bit more compassion--although a healthy classroom discourse is always welcomed.
Much discussion and highlighted attention will be will be paid to the insults used as well as the self-assigned names, but the absence of a name is also very telling, and it occurs most with Shylock, who is most often referred to as ‘the Jew’. Looking closely at the text, one will find that Shylock is named by his given name eleven times, but is referred to as ‘the Jew’ thirty-one times, often by the same characters who refer to him at least once as Shylock. The conscious choice of which name to use points to a pattern of intention, and what follows provides a sampling of when ‘the Jew’ is used by others to emphasize a dehumanization of sorts.
The first time he is referred to as ‘the Jew’ is by Antonio after the initial discussion of the bond in which he states, “Content, i' faith: I'll seal to such a bond/ And say there is much kindness in the Jew” (I, iii,160). Next are several line examples throughout the play that highlight Shylock’s dehumanization. First, Gobbo states “…Certainly the Jew is the very devil incarnal; and, in my conscience,/ my conscience is but a kind of hard conscience,/ to offer to counsel me to stay with the Jew” (II,ii,17-28). The subsequent quotes occur in formal circumstances, like the courtroom environment, that make the broad designation even more offensive. Portia says, “What sum owes the Jew” (III,ii,310). The Duke says, “Go one, and call the Jew into the court” (IV,I,13). Lastly, the Clerk emphasizes the distinction between a label and a proper name when he says, “I acquainted him with the cause in controversy between the Jew and Antonio the merchant…” (IV,i,159). It is important for students to realize the impact of not being called by a given name and the detrimental power of being identified with a broad label. The cause and consequence of the dehumanization and anti-Semitism are eloquently summed up in arguably the most famous speech in the play given by Shylock which states:
Hath a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimension, senses, affection, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. (III,I,49-59)
It is in these lines that the reader can feel the inequity Shylock feels, and can realize how longstanding systematic discrimination among faiths and ethnic identities results in a mentality of retaliation. In sum, stereotypes and prejudice are living entities which the students of yesterday, today, and many tomorrows will comprehend as relevant.
While looking at the power of words and in what is in a name, it is fitting to also discuss the origin of the word ghetto as it relates to The Merchant of Venice. In a previously taught unit, my students were required to define words and compare definitions in an effort to understand point of view and one of those words was ghetto in which responses ranged from “where poor people live” to “a ratchet way of acting” and still others provided definitions instead of concrete examples. None of my students wondered about the origin of the word and would likely be surprised that although it is related to an area of geographic separation, it had nothing to do with African Americans or America at all. Instead, the etymology of the word is Italian, from the Venetian dialect: ghèto island was where Jews were forced to live (Balser 2006). It is to be assumed that this is where Shylock is forced to reside, despite his financial success, and it further points to the systematic oppression he is subject to. To fully depict the climate of the time one should know that “Pope Innocent III decreed that Jews should be forbidden from holding public office, should have clothing that distinguished them from Christians, and should not appear in public during Easter week.”4
Comments: