Essay: Religion and gender in The Great Gatsby and The Merchant of Venice

Through texts, we are enriched by a multiplicity of human experiences instigating our own consciousness, and those of others. As composers and scholars of literature, we are able to understand the way texts are created and the way in which the creation of literary worlds are able to reflect and represent our own, allowing composers to express the paradoxical nature of human experiences. However, through the opposition of religion and gender within Francis Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby”, and playwright William Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”, the portrayal of the inconsistencies and anomalies within the human experience are highlighted. The significant extent to which both my texts, “The Great Gatsby” and “The Merchant of Venice” represent and illuminate my understanding of the complex nature of human experiences, through gender and religion, make way for the opulent explorations of these experiences, irradiating how the representation of these explorations shape further meaning in indomitable ways.
Religion
The religious affiliations and political instability during the Renaissance period, due to the reformation of the church, from Catholic to Protestant made for a destabilised society characterised by turmoil and the rise of merchant trading. This is predominantly represented throughout the literary world of “The Merchant of Venice” as Christian believers had monopolised western society and ridiculed Jewish believers, allowing for the religious persecution of Shylock, a Jewish money-loaner within a Venetian Christian society. Shylock’s isolation and religious persecution, is only redeemed through the loss of his identity by becoming a Christian which highlights his human experience and attachment to his religion through the unjust treatment he faces as a result of the anti-Semitic beliefs prevalent within their society. This is conveyed throughout the play as Shylock describes his frustrations towards the racial persecution he faces exclaiming the collective human experience of the Christians and Jewish alike. “I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? … organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food… 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?” Shylock is able to highlight the parallelism and draw his persecutors’ attention to the humanity of the Jewish by prompting them to see the common humanity shared between the Christians and Jewish, through the repetition of anaphora, epistrophe and rhetorical questions. The rhetorical device of cumulation and repetition is employed through a catalogue of abuses, meditation of common humanity, responses to injustice and in the listing of bodily appearances, needs and vulnerabilities, appealing to the common humanity of men, suggesting that the distinctions of religion are superficial in comparison with the underlying common nature shared by all. Through the use of Aristotle’s 5 act structure, the subversion of the literary world and the use of comedy, Shakespeare allows for his textual form to critique the his society, for its extreme Christian ethnocentrism during his time as a fundamental socio-religious flaw of the human mind in order to not face the consequences. In a society that not only craved religious homogeneity but took drastic measures to attain it, few would have been troubled by the implications of Shylock’s forced conversion, as they believed they were saving the soul of a heathen. Shylock’s obligation to “presently become a Christian” and to forsake Jewish ritual and synagogue to avoid a recanted judgement, portrays his attachment and injustice due to his religion. This is through his loyalty to his beliefs as he shows no means of converting to Christianity during the entirety of the play. Through maintaining positive, caring connotations for Christianity and negative, evil connotations for the Jewish, Shakespeare guides the audience to the belief that “Christians are good, Jews are bad” as during the time the play was written Shakespeare’s only relationship with Jewish people, were with those called “conversios” who had converted to Christianity. This is due to Jews being banned from England in 1290, illustrating the attitude of the society that Shakespeare lived and grew up believing as a society of anti-Semitics. The extent to which my understanding of human experiences within “The Merchant of Venice” are formed is through the way in which Shakespeare represents the complex nature of religion through intense conflicts as well as the monarchical instability and anti-Semitic beliefs within his society. This further represents Shylock’s human experience during the time as one characterised by having puissant impacts on both himself and those around him, and allows for the exploitation of the paradoxes and inconsistencies within their society, shaping further meaning in indomitable ways.
The subversion of one’s attachment to religion is evident within my related text, Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” as religious commitment the Protestant Church took a sharp decline post-war, as did those within the text shifting towards affluence and materialism. The absence of religion among the upper echelons of the society within “The Great Gatsby”, suggests the lack of morality, as the characters are guided by each other to determine their morality as opposed to the moral precepts of religion or of God. The textual form of narration and the representation of the composers own society within the literary world, allows for Fitzgerald to critique his society’s moral dilapidation within the 1920’s, in order to evoke faith in humanity and religion. In Fitzgerald’s jaded America, the only God that can exist takes the form of a billboard, the eyes of “Dr TJ Eckleburg”, in which suggest that capitalism and the desire for wealth rules where religion once did, after the first world war. This further opposes the fact that “sees God everything”, within the text as characters such as the protagonists in the text do not mentioned any form any religious affiliations within the entirety of the text or their human experiences. The symbolism of the eyes of “Dr TJ Eckleburg as a source of wisdom plays as a biblical allusion to God within their literary world, and further portrays their blatant disregard of religion as the characters pay no attention to it, carrying on with their excessive drinking and partying which were prohibited during the time. The notion of dishonesty and deceit further outlines the absence of religion within the text as the characters selfishly manipulate one another in order to receive what they want. Nick Carraway, although he too lacks any religious affiliation, is one of the few characters within the text which withholds any virtue and moral stability throughout his human experience. “Every one suspects himself of at least one of the cardinal virtues, and this is mine: I am one of the few honest people that I have ever known.” Nick Carraway’s morality is further highlighted by his self-appreciation and stream of consciousness as he realises the corruption and lack of morality governed by those he is associated with. Nick Carraway not only realises the moral dilapidation throughout those around him by the way in which they invite him to perform prohibited deeds in the eyes of others, but through the way in which they perform these cardinal sins when they believe no one is around. “I stared at (Wilson) and then at Tom, who had made a parallel discovery less than an hour before—and it occurred to me that there was no difference between men, in intelligence or race, so profound as the difference between the sick and the well.” Through the use of dramatic irony as viewers we are able to identify the lack of religious affiliation and ultimately morality throughout the infidelity of both Tom Buchanan and George Wilson, however we are only enlightened to the extent of moral corruption both men attain when Nick Carraway identifies these sins and unifies their indifferences. Although Tom may have riches, he is poor in virtue and is perhaps the least religious character throughout the text as he performs more sins than any other character. To a substantial degree the way in which my text, “The Great Gatsby” represents the intricate nature of moral dilapidation as a result of the lack of religion within the characters and replaces religion with the desire for wealth throughout the text, enlightens the way these representations of these explorations shape further meaning in resolute ways.
Gender
The way in which individuals and the beliefs which govern their society and those around them, play in role in determining the liberty of the individual based on their gender, can ultimately define the way they are treated throughout their human experiences. Throughout Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”, and my text “The Great Gatsby”, the undermining of gender roles in a society governed by misogynistic beliefs allows for powerful female characters to afford their liberty that they otherwise do not have. The substantial extent to which the representations of gender through dominant female and male characters ultimately allows for the sedition and critique of gender throughout the human experience within my texts in compelling ways.
During the Renaissance, Queen Elizabeth had ruled the monarchy which had ultimately gave William Shakespeare the opportunity to subvert gender roles as they were being subverted in real life. Through textual form Shakespeare is able to critique these subversions and not face the consequences as he was able to portray these views in a subtle manner through the changing of literary worlds, from England to Venice and use humour so that his audience would accept it. The way in which Shakespeare chooses to represent Portia as a dominant and powerful female character, is ironic in the way that he challenges the notion of gender and allows for Portia to ‘save’ Antonio from the court, however the way in which Portia must disguise herself as a man to do so conveys the impression that women were believed to not have the capability to do so as they were too profound with emotion, through dressing as a male only then is her opinion warranted. Although Portia believes “God made him and therefore let him pass as a man,” she does know “it is a sin to be a mocker,” therefore through the use of religious allusion Shakespeare highlights the extent to which Portia and Nerissa will meet in order to afford their liberty and independence as a man that women do not have and support Antonio. The notion of the liberty and freedom of movement is opposed however, through the notion of Filial Piety in which Portia is “… curbed by the will of a dead father”. The tone in which Portia speaks of her father is rather vindictive as she almost resents her father for the limitations he has set on her, even after his passing. This outlines the influence and authority men had over women and the duty to the father that had governed the Renaissance period, afflicting their human experience through the injustice they experienced as a result. Towards the end of the play, after these dominant women characters portray their power and capabilities when given the opportunities, they fool the men into handing over their ‘Vehement’ oaths of the ring. This sparks ‘gender wars’ throughout the play and is significantly emphasised as the men “…think we are accomplished with that we lack”. Through the use of an allegory to highlight the injustice of women as ‘dependent’ characters within their misogynistic societies, Antonio, Bassanio and Gratiano are able to critique and not believe the women in an act of discomfiture through the subversion of gender roles. The great extent to which, “The Merchant of Venice” represents the convoluted nature of gender throughout the human experience, makes way for the rich explorations of these experiences, throughout a misogynistic society where men were seen as the dominant gender in comparison to females, and informs how the representation of these explorations shape further meaning in unconquerable ways.