Emma Kugelmass
Mrs. McLaughlin
CGI English 11 HH
30 November 2018
Ahead of His Time or Aptly Controversial? A Study of Shakespearean Social Normality
Few writers are as essential to the canon of dramatic literature as Shakespeare. Today, his plays are taught all over the world in both small classrooms and massive lecture halls. Despite being written in the 17th century, Shakespeare’s work is quite modern, especially for its time. This is largely due to the utilization of untraditional dynamics and relationships. Based on the success of his work, many modern scholars assume Shakespeare used his plays to propagate his personal social beliefs. But upon closer examination of this theory, it is clear that the two are unrelated. Shakespeare’s decision to stray from stereotype in The Merchant of Venice is independent of his personal beliefs, and simply a writing tactic used to strengthen his plot.
Take the central character, Shylock the money-lender. This villain perpetuates almost every Jewish stereotype of the time. Furthermore, he’s the antagonist of an anti semitic play. The Merchant of Venice is Shakespeare’s version of a popular motif. Writing this type of play at all, and the use of a Shylock-type clearly perpetuates popular anti semitism of the Elizabethan era. However, modern interpretations of the play see Shylock as the victim, and a sympathetic character. Is Shylock’s depth of personality Shakespeare’s plea to treat Jewish people with kindness? Take the “Hath not a Jew speech”, in which Shylock declares himself to be no different than Christians:
“Hath not a /Jew…warmed and cooled by/the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?…If you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that,”
(Merchant 3.1.46-53). Shylock’s declaration of humanity can be interpreted as Shakespeare’s subtle denunciation of religious prejudice. Was this Shakespeare’s intention? Probably not. By giving Shylock tenacity and a rich psyche, Shakespeare created a fully-formed character. Shylock is essential to the plot of the story and interacts with many contrasting characters. The deeper Shylock is, the more substance Shakespeare has to work with. But ultimately, Shylock is still a villainous money lending Jew, who hungers for the blood of a noble Christian and is successfully destroyed by the end of Act IV. So where exactly does Shakespeare’s redeem himself?
A Shakespearean work is built on human interaction. More specifically, the relationships between characters, both platonic and romantic. When the distinction between the two becomes blurred, modern audiences are quick to declare a love story. Antonio and Bassanio’s relationship is often the recipient of such scrutiny. Their relationship is written as platonic however there are lines that may raise a few eyebrows. When Antonio takes out a loan to finance Bassanio’s pursuance of Portia, he exclaims, “I pray you, good Bassanio,…/My purse, my person, my extremest means,/Lie all unlocked to your occasions” (Merchant 1.1.142-146). Especially curious are their parting words during the courtroom scene during Antonio’s near-death experience:
A: “Tell her the process of Antonio’s end;/Say how I loved you…/Whether Bassanio had not once a love…/And he repents not that he pays your debt…/I’ll pay it presently with all my heart”(Merchant 4.1.285-293).
B: “Antonio, I am married to a wife…,/But life itself, my wife, and all the world/Are not with me esteemed above thy life./I would lose all, ay, sacrifice them all” (Merchant 4.1.294-298).
These are very weighty declarations. Are they purely platonic? Maybe not, but regardless of the nature of their feelings for each other, Shakespeare has succeed in creating a captivating relationship. Friends, secret lovers, soulmates, or acquaintances, it does not matter. The audience is invested in the depth of feeling these two men have for one another. Their storyline is incredibly compelling and heightens the drama. These final exchanges are powerful and full of emotion. If they are in fact lovers, the story is taboo and exotic. Imagine how exciting it must have been for closeted Elizabethan men! Even more impressive, is the subtlety with which Shakespeare created their story. Either way, these details add a tremendous amount to the story without creating controversy from the audience. As noted in a post by a SUNY New Paltz student, “Shakespeare is able to convey this sexually fluid subtext in a way that greatly adds to dramatic plot…without anyone questioning it. And that had to be hard to do during this time period” (Ryan). More importantly, it has continued to draws audiences in, maybe more than ever before. Whether or not Shakespeare intended to create a homoerotic story of forbidden lust is beside the point.
A common lense for Shakespearean criticism is gender. In TMOV woman have the upperhand in two separate circumstances. Does this make Shakespeare a free-bleeding, stick-it-to-the-man, feminazi? Not even a little bit. The character of Portia contradicts all Venetian gender norms. In her relationship with Bassanio, Portia = Power. She has the money, so she makes the decisions. Bassanio woos her, so he wears her ring. Portia does as she pleases, so Bassanio pardons her. Separately, examine Jessica and Lorenzo’s relationship. Jessica, Shylock’s daughter runs away with Lorenzo the Christian, and takes all of Shylock’s money. Money = Power = an egalitarian dynamic and Shakespeare’s obvious support for protofeminism.
Slow down there Suffragette. It is quite common for Shakespeare to spike a romance with dominion. In Macbeth, Lady Macbeth pulls the strings behind the gates of Inverness and engineers the entirety of King Duncan’s murder, which Macbeth royally screws up. In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet devises a master plan to thwart naysayers of her relationship with Romeo by taking a sleeping potion, but Romeo freaks and kills himself. With leading ladies at the reins, Shakespeare’s men can fumble and fail all over their women, or save the day. Instead of creating a multilayered setting and letting female characters chew on it like so many other writers, woman are the complex scenery that interacts with men and shapes their stories. At its most fundamental, TMOV is a male-centric play. The world of Venice is but a setting, where every strong woman must wither, and each man appear chivalrous. But without women, the show would be unrealistic and dull. By creating fully developed female characters, it enables Shakespeare to heighten the actions of his male cast.
Shakespeare was not writing for modern audiences, but much of what he wrote still excites people today. While it may be obvious that Shakespeare’s characters defied stereotypes of their time, it is not apparent that Shakespeare intended this as a statement and exposure of his personal beliefs. It was Shakespeare’s responsibility to create an engaging story; eliciting anger, shock, and horror from his audience was just as important as their happiness and satisfaction. It would be unfair for modern audiences to assume that Shakespeare desired social controversy simply because of his controversial characters. Minorities with complex thoughts and actions existed in Venice, even if the broader society hesitated to to accept them. But, Shakespeare was smart enough to recognize them and expose their realities, whether 16th century Britain was ready, or not.
Works Cited
Ryan. “Fall 2015 Shakespeare I: Team 7.” Fall 2015 Shakespeare I Team 7, SUNY New Paltz, 16 Sept. 2015, hawksites.newpaltz.edu/fall2015eng406team7/2015/09/16/25/comment-page-1/.
Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice. Ed. Stanley Appelbaum. Ed. Candace Ward. Toronto: Dover Publications, Inc, 1995. Print.