تاجر البندقية

by William Shakespeare, إبراهيم جلال (Translator)

In this lively comedy of love and money in sixteenth-century Venice, Bassanio wants to impress the wealthy heiress Portia but lacks the necessary funds. He turns to his merchant friend, Antonio, who is forced to borrow from Shylock, a Jewish moneylender. When Antonio's business falters, repayment becomes impossible--and by the terms of the loan agreement, Shylock is able to demand a pound of Antonio's flesh. Portia cleverly intervenes, and all ends well (except of course for Shylock).

Genres: Classics, Plays, Shakespeare, Fiction, Drama, School, Literature

175 pages

First published January 1, 1596

About the author

William Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many years ago I believed this play to be an early experiment in tragi-comedy featuring Shylock, a nemesis of almost tragic proportions, who--both because of the sympathies he evokes and the evil determination he represents--unbalances the play, making the last act in Belmont seem like a hollow exercise in formal completeness. More recently, I believed that Shylock was essentially a comic villain, one dark splash on a predominately sunny canvas that embodies f0r us the fallen world of Venice transformed by the magic of Portia's Belmont. (I also believe our knowledge of the Holocaust makes it impossible to appreciate the play fully in this way).

Now-after my recent re-reading--I'm no longer sure what to think. For one thing--taking the title seriously this time--I feel that Antonio the merchant, both in his unexplained sadness, his love (whether erotic or paternal or both) for Bassanio, and his unredeemed solitariness, is extremely important to the meaning of the play. I think that Antonio and Shylock, in their preoccupations and loneliness, are similar, but that Antonio--unlike Shylock--is able to look beneath the surface of things, to peer beneath "our muddy vesture of decay" and hear the music of the spheres as it echoes in the human heart. Thus Antonio becomes capable of love and mercy through choice, in much the same way that Bassanio chooses the right caskets and Portia chooses the mature way to respond to Bassanio's giving away of her ring. Shylock, however, by willingly suppressing his compassion for another and insisting strictly on justice puts himself beyond mercy and beyond love.

[Nayra.Hassan · Rating 4 out of 5]

شايلوك أيها الطفيلي الاناني:تسمح لي امنحك انحناءة شكر رقيقة!فانت سبب حبي للادب
شايلوك ايها المرابي الشره:لن انساك مهما قرأت..فساظل اقيس شر البطل من خيره عليك
شايلوك ايها المخادع الماكر: تذكرني دائما بجملة"أخذ الحق صنعة"و ان المرأة اذا أرادت..تنتصر على من هو أسوأ منك

شيلوك المرابي الذي يبني ثراؤه على شقاء من يقع في يده💸
..يقع بين براثنه أنطونيو النبيل الذي يرفض نشاطه و يفسده عليه :بأن يقرض كل ذي حاجة بلا ربح. .و يتاجر بشرف مما يجلب على مجتمعه الخير..و ها قد سنحت الفرصةلشايلوك ليصمم على استقصاء حقه من انطونيو باخذ رطل من لحمه. .لآ يعوضه عن الرطل..آلاف العملات الذهبية

لم يسترسل شكسبير في تركيز كل الرذائل اليهودية في شايلوك..بل منحه كل صفات الأقليات اليهودية عندما تنحصر في ظروف اقتصادية و زمنية و اجتماعية..فتراه انعزالي؛ يرى في💰 المال صاحبه و نجاته..يبتلع الإهانة في غل ويتحين الفرص للانتقام و لا يسمح للرحمة بشق طريقها اليه

النجمة 🌟الناقصة لانني حتى و انا في سن 13عندما درستها لم ابتلع ابدا الأسباب التي دعت انطونيو للاقتراض ممن يحتقره و يسبه و يبصق عليه بل و انه يؤكد له و هو يقترض منه انه :يحتقره و كل هذا لماذا؟ ..ليتزوج صديقه المسرف؟؟؟! حقا
..يا له من سبب قهري رهيب
..عموما الحلو مايكملش َ
كل هذا التلفيق تحملته لانه سبب لظهور : بورشيا القوية الذكية الثريةالماكرة بطلتي الشكسبيرية المفضلة للابد : أو لارا كروفت شكسبير

[chai ♡ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Me, on my death bed: “Say how I loved you, speak me fair in death; / And, when the tale is told, bid her be judge / Whether Bassanio had not once a love.”

(I also highly recommend watching the 2004 film adaptation starring Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, and Lynn Collins. It's SO good!)

[Ahmad Ebaid · Rating 5 out of 5]

"الرجل الذي لا يشعر بالموسيقى ولا يهزه الطرب إنما هو مفطور على الغدر والاحتيال, حركات نفسه قطوب كقطوب الظلام، وأهواؤه سود كأهواء الجحيم. وقصارى القول إنه رجل يحذر شره ويتقى أمره "

قرأت ترجمة خليل مطران, فيها ألفاظ صعبة كتير, لدرجة إنه تم تغيير بعض الكلمات لصعوبتها عند تمثيلها على مسرح حديقة الأزبكية في القاهرة منذ أكتر من 50 سنة, متاح تسجيل صوتي لمسرحية الأزبكية على الإنترنت لمن يريد الإطلاع عليها

الترجمة القديمة مهمة لو انت عايز تقوى اللغة وتستمتع بألفاظ جديدة عليك, ولو انت معندكش استعداد تدور على معاني الكلمات دي, فيوجد ترجمات تانية حديثة ألفاظها أسهل ولكنها ربما تكون أكثر ركاكة, اختر ما تظنه مناسبا لك

مطران وضع ملخص للقصة في البداية ودراسة عنها وعن شخصياتها, ودي حاجه مبيعملهاش المترجمين الجدد, بس برده هي حاجة هتحرق لك الأحداث وهتشوش استمتاعك بالمسرحية


عن المسرحية نفسها:

كلاسيكية لأبعد حد ممكن -زي بقية أعمال شكسبير-, كل القصص التي في المسرحية هي قصص رمزية شعبية قام شكسبير بحبكتها فقط مع بعضها في هذا الإطار,

مش بنفس جمال الأدب المعاصر, بس ليها جمالها الخاص, شكسبير أسلوبه في السرد واحد في كل مسرحياته, وإن كان تخلى عن وحدة المكان في المسرحية دي,

"جمال الرحمة أن تكون خيارًا لا اضطرارًا"

الكثير من المشاعر والعلاقات, كل شيء فيها يبدو مثالي, صداقة مثالية, حب مثالي, تضحية مثالية, شرير مخادع يهودي زي ما بيقول الكتالوج, ودا اضطر فريق عمل الفيلم المقتبس عن المسرحية عام 2004 أن يقدم تنويه في البداية بأن هذه النظرة لليهود هي نظرة العصور الوسطى وأنهم يلتمسون العذر لأي ممارسات كان يقوم بها اليهود نظراً لما مروا به من اضطهاد

تجميع للأساطير الشعبية في إطار حبكة مسرحي, يمكن زي كليلة ودمنة شوية

<الصناديق الثلاثة ذهب وفضة ورصاص + قطع رطل لحم بدون قطرة دم للدائن'القانون الروماني' + جشع اليهود واضطهادهم> = "مسرحية تاجر البندقية"


تحديث:
بعد مشاهدة الفيلم, أحسست بالكثير من المشاعر التي مررت عليها مرور الكرام في المسرحية,

فعندما قال الباتشينو:

ولم كل هذا؟ لأنني يهودي!!
أليس لليهودي عينان؟
أليس لليهودي يدان وأعضاء وجسم وحواس ومودات وشهوات؟
أليس غذاؤه مما يتغذى به النصراني؟
أليست الآلة التي تجرح أحدهما تجرح الآخر؟
أليس العلاج الذي يشفي ذاك يشفي هذا؟
أليس الشتاء والصيف واحدًا لكليهما؟ ألسنا إذا وخزتمونا ننزف دمًا، وإذا دغدغتمونا نضحك، وإذا سقيتمونا السم نموت، وإذا آذيتمونا ننتقم؟

مشاعري اتهزت جدا بعد سرده للجملة دي, المسرحية تستحق الخمس نجوم بدل الأربع نجوم السابقين, أعتقد المشكلة كانت في إجهادي من الترجمة.

تحديث 2:
في طريقي لامتحان مادة "إحصاء تطبيقي" تذكرت المشهد دا تاني, فَسَرَت في جسدي رعشة إثارة, ثم ولا أعرف لماذا, ذهب عقلي إلى أن حجة شيلوك التاجر اليهودي, هي في إحدى مستوياتها المغالطة المنطقية "الرنجة الحمراء", فهم يعرفون أنك إنسان مثلهم, والجور ضدك مصدره اختلاف دينك عنهم!!

المنطق أفسد متعتي التي تنجم عن كل مرة كنت أتذكر فيها المشهد !!

"إنما الغراب والبلابل واحد في أذن من لا ينصت إليها"

[Nayra.Hassan · Rating 4 out of 5]

شايلوك أيها الطفيلي الاناني:تسمح لي امنحك انحناءة شكر رقيقة!فانت سبب حبي للادب
شايلوك ايها المرابي الشره:لن انساك مهما قرأت..فساظل اقيس شر البطل من خيره عليك
شايلوك ايها المخادع الماكر: تذكرني دائما بجملة"أخذ الحق صنعة"و ان المرأة اذا أرادت..تنتصر على من هو أسوأ منك

شيلوك المرابي الذي يبني ثراؤه على شقاء من يقع في يده💸
..يقع بين براثنه أنطونيو النبيل الذي يرفض نشاطه و يفسده عليه :بأن يقرض كل ذي حاجة بلا ربح. .و يتاجر بشرف مما يجلب على مجتمعه الخير..و ها قد سنحت الفرصةلشايلوك ليصمم على استقصاء حقه من انطونيو باخذ رطل من لحمه..لآ يعو��ه عن الرطل ..آلاف العملات الذهبية

لم يسترسل شكسبير في تركيز كل الرذائل اليهودية في شايلوك. .بل منحه كل صفات الأقليات اليهودية عندما تنحصر في ظروف اقتصادية و زمنية و اجتماعية..فتراه انعزالي؛ يرى في��� المال صاحبه و نجاته..يبتلع الإهانة في غل ويتحين الفرص للانتقام و لا يسمح للرحمة بشق طريقها اليه

النجمة 🌟الناقصة لانني حتى و انا في سن 13عندما درستها لم ابتلع ابدا الأسباب التي دعت انطونيو للاقتراض ممن يحتقره و يسبه و يبصق عليه بل و انه يؤكد له و هو يقترض منه انه :يحتقره و كل هذا لماذا؟؟.. ليتزوج صديقه المسرف؟؟؟! حقا
..يا له من سبب قهري رهيب
..عموما الحلو مايكملش ..
كل هذا التلفيق تحملته لانه سبب لظهور : بورشيا القوية الذكية الثريةالماكرة بطلتي الشكسبيرية المفضلة للابد : أو لارا كروفت شكسبير

[emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a wise woman in the comments of this review once said, this is a great and underrated work by Billy Shakes depending on how you read the anti-Semitism within it.

As in, on the one hand, this is witty and smart and filled with sex jokes.

But on the other hand, the villain is a Jewish stereotype.

It's not that simple, though. There's a lot to be said for the complicated ways that that character is treated, and it's definitely not as straightforward as it might seem if you don't pay attention.

But there are Shakespeare scholars to talk about things like that. I'm not smart enough - all I can lay claim to is being the resident expert in d*ck puns exclusively.

And this flourishes in those.

Bottom line: I love to read Shakespeare and feel like the smartest person alive!

------------------
pre-review

feel like my brain grew 3 sizes.

review to come / 3.5 or 4 stars

------------------
currently-reading updates

tis the season to read books that will make me look smart outside where people will be impressed

[Fergus, Weaver of Autistic Webs · Rating 4 out of 5]

This little item was the wintertime requisite high school Shakespearean outing for freshman year back in the sixties, in Ontario the Good.

An emerald Aspie, my thirteen year old brain could never understand, once Shylock had been neatly disposed of in a quivering blob by the Protestant merrymakers, that it was now time to loosen up and party hearty!

Well, sex sold in English lit back then, as now.

Not to mention the bating of Jewish holdouts to add to all the fun!

And so the last scene of the play is one long dirty joke. Yikes.

But Miss West, our prim and proper teacher for the play, just pooh-poohed the raunchy Bard, saying only that it wasn't quite in good taste.

So this little Aspie breathed easy again.
***

If you said Shakespeare really REACHED for his laffs, you'd be right.

After all, a good fella's gotta act like one of the boys, right or wrong!

And playing to the pit beefed up his royalties.

Not to mention cozying up to the Protestant Landed Gentry...

So go figure.

It was all in an honest day's wages.

So Merchant is a potboiler. The Bard just unbuttoned, then hit all the Right Buttons.

And waited for the good times to roll again financially!
***

If it wasn't for his more sincere poetry, we'd just discard Shakespeare outright. Prospero's magic is sporadic.

Just as, if Merchant didn''t possess poetic diamonds along with racist rubble, I'd toss my copy.

So picture this: the raunchy ring jokes have all ended. The boys all long for the pleasures their wenches' beds promise this merry night. And all is still...

And THEN (at last!) one voice begins a Song from the Heart!

"On such a night as this..." How sweet the moonlight sleeps upon the bank!

And everyone rejoices and joins in, with all rivalry, hatred and cheap laughs now forgotten.

The song rises to a joyful crescendo, and once again Shakespeare hits us where we live:

For now, in our hearts, we know All's Well that Ends Well!

And so, with sighs all round, each couple heads to their divers beds...

May your every wish come true, kids:

For now Our Prospero lives again!

https://youtu.be/TNeOImbttlg?si=826R2...

[Henry Avila · Rating 5 out of 5]

The pretty islands of Venice, in the shallow lagoon, atop the blue, Adriatic Sea, as the blazing rays of the Sun, shine down, on the brilliant colors of the homes, the calm canals full of boats , with cargo, from faraway lands, a glorious past, but an uncertain future, the rise of Portugal, worries the people. The city once powerful, a short distance from the Italian mainland, vastly wealthy, is in decline...Antonio, the most successful merchant in Venice, and a gambler in commerce, his ships float in the unpredictable oceans waves, always bringing him back riches , to the lucky man. His cousin, and best friend , Bassanio, not so much, he has a bad habit of spending not only all his money, but quite a lot not in his pockets ( a concept still popular in modern times ). As they say, a friend in need, is a friend indeed, Bassanio asks Antonio for a loan, but unfortunately his kinsman has everything tied up, but wait a short while, soon his ships will come in, and Antonio will be richer than ever. Bassanio can't, there is a woman involved, he needs plenty of ducats, to impress the lady Portia, who lives on shore, Belmont, that he is well off, not a penniless seeker of gold , through marriage to her. Only the moneylender Shylock, can do this, Christians in the middle ages, considered it unchristian, getting interest from loaning money... so intelligent Jews, dominates this trade and did very well. The wise Shylock ( who despises Antonio, a rival, and the merchant does not love him either), will not have anything to do with the reckless Bassanio, but Antonio, that's different, an excellent reputation in business. 3,000 ducats agreed to, a contract signed by Antonio, with a funny line about a pound of flesh taken from The Merchant of Venice, if he can't repay back the loan, with interest, in three months. Simple, his ships have always brought back precious merchandise, making huge profits, much over the cost of his investments, but the mammoth seas, are exceedingly treacherous, and unfeeling, news arrives, a shipwreck off Tripoli, another in the English Channel, others, fall under the stormy waves, never to be seen again, sink in the cold waters, to the unknown bottom of the abyss. Antonio, is ruined, like his ships, Shylock demands not his money, but the pound of flesh from his hide, even the Duke, of the city, is helpless, a contract is a contract, bad for business if not enforced ...His cousin has been better served by the gods, married to the wealthy , smart, independently-minded, beautiful, Portia, but Antonio, still needs a good lawyer, now, the hesitant Bassanio returns to Venice, with his wife's support, on their wedding day. Nerissa, Portia's maid, married Gratiano, her husband's friend, the two secretly follow them to the city, dressed as men. Their new, unperceptive, maybe even vacuous husbands, know not these gentlemen...Portia, a pretend attorney, with whatever legal knowledge, she acquires ( but an intellectual giant), must save Antonio from an undoubted death...The Jewish Shylock, makes the best statement ever, against racism... "If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?"

[Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although the most famous speech from this piece is, deservedly and understandably, Shylock's 'prick us' monologue, I think that the more useful speech to talk about what I felt about the play is Portia's only slightly less famous 'quality of mercy' speech in the court room scene:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.

That speech above is the reason why this play has received three starts instead of the five that it deserves for the brilliance of its rendering, the writing, the amazing commentary, the bravery of putting it out there, complication of its presentation... and really, everything else about it. Actually, let me be more precise: the fact that none of the characters in this play lived up to that speech is the reason is the reason for the three stars.

Here's the thing: I did not like a single person in this play. Not one. It was an absolute chore to read this play, and took much longer than it should have to get through- the same reaction I have to reading Russian novels or George Bernard Shaw plays where the characters are mere mouthpieces, and their sometimes jaw-droppingly awful actions should be excused by their overall 'message'. There were so many absolutely horrifying things going on in this play, and not one plotline to redeem it, or attach me to the story. Not one. Piles of racism, nationalism, religious preaching, a Christ complex or two, mildly offensive gender politics, the whole thing was an absolute morass- there's, as always, too much to deal with in a Shakespeare play to cover it all, which is why I have chosen the quality of mercy speech, and perhaps I'll be able to touch on everything spiraling out from there.

Not one person in this play particularly stuck to the above defined, idealized presentation of justice or mercy. Nobody particularly deserved mercy, either. Shylock (as subversive a condemnation of anti-Semitism as he might be), is forced to take his revenge too far for the sake of wrapping up the plotline so that the Jew doesn't win. Antonio, despite his surface presentation of goodness is a deeply cruel, probably racist prick who plays the martyr as it benefits him, and, I have a deep suspicion, gave to his friend Bassiano due to the fact that he is in love with him (and so, is selfish, not selfless). As for our supposed 'romantic' leads: Bassiano is one selfish jerk who teaches the audience that its totally cool to cheat people and take advantage of people if you're young and hot, Gratiano expresses his desire to lead a lynch mob, and thinks going off on racist rants is fun, and Lorenzo can't wait to spend the rest of his life lording his 'generosity' over what he believes will be his slavishly grateful Jewish wife. As for the women, Jessica cares more for rising in the world out of her 'inferior' Jewish position than her father or, really, anything else, and makes a sickening speech about how awesome her Jesus-lovin' fiance is, Nerissa starts off potentially interesting and winds up very quickly as a mere shadow and eventually literal echo of her employer, like Shakespeare forgot what he put her there to begin with.

And as for Portia... she's the only character in this play that I have a bit of a struggle with. I do want to like her- I certainly appreciate the fact that she starts off as independent as it is possible for her to be- supposedly living her life in accordance with her dead daddy's wishes, and yet her own mistress for what seems to have been a very long time. She's smart, witty, quick, and definitely not afraid to stick up for herself. She pretends the submissive wife when her husband runs off five minutes after they get engaged, pretending to go to a convent, and instead goes on a cross-dressing, everyone-saving adventure. But here's my thing with Portia- she is not merciful. She's mean, man. I started to feel sorry for all those poor princes who show up to try to claim her hand- I know they're just plot points and there to be made fun of, but good God. They're not people at all- they're just countries, being made fun of, 'cause dumb national stereotypes are fun. Shakespeare was in all likelihood playing to his audiences' nationalistic sympathies at the time- the two Princes who actually appear are of Arragon and Morocco. The English were not huge fans of Spain at the time given the current and past political situation, and making fun of black people... well, why not? The ones who are just talked about are Palatine, French, English and Neopolitan Princes- all (except for the English, which is dealt with below), countries I'm sure England was totally cool with them looking a bit ridiculous.

(I did actually love the description of the English prince- it was a humorous, sharp commentary on English power and imperialism.-"What say you, then, to Falconbridge, the young baron
of England?
You know I say nothing to him, for he understands
not me, nor I him: he hath neither Latin, French,
nor Italian, and you will come into the court and
swear that I have a poor pennyworth in the English.
He is a proper man's picture, but, alas, who can
converse with a dumb-show? How oddly he is suited!
I think he bought his doublet in Italy, his round
hose in France, his bonnet in Germany and his
behavior every where.)

...Anyway, just another example of the cardboard people thing that helped to add up to a deeply unlikeable play- even if the observations were funny, and did help to set up Portia as a witty woman, their other uses cannot be ignored. (The above is the nicest thing she has to say about anybody, btw.) And after she gives an admittedly brilliant performance in the courtroom, Shakespeare feels the need to end the play with her as the nagging, scolding wife, who deliberately sets her husband up to be caught. 'Cause that's what the wimmens are like! Just waiting to claw your eyes out at any opportunity, dontcha know? Also, the action directly contradicted everything she had just said in the courtroom, as it was exactly like or worse than what Shylock supposedly did to Antonio. She spends this whole speech talking about how mercy does not mean keeping to the letter of the law, and it means understanding human frailty and how mercy is better than justice, etc, etc, and then, literally two scenes later, she's all, "but Bassianno, you saaaaaaid...." and takes huge self-righteous delight in ripping down the man she supposedly loves after setting him up to lose.

I suppose you can make the feminist argument that at least she doesn't give in totally to her man, and she still reminds him constantly who is in control- it is her money that allows Bassiano to put on a brave face in the courtroom, it is her words that get him out of it, it is her ring that shows him how close he can come to being tossed the fuck out. Even if she can't do that once she's married, she's made her point. But I don't know if this is a more positive stereotype of women than the woman who wilts into her husband immediately after her marriage.

As for the anti-Semitism in this play... it is a delicate subject, but I definitely come down on the side that Shakespeare meant this to be a subversive commentary on the popular views of the day. If the 'prick us' speech didn't open that window, the treatment of Shylock and how other characters talk about him throughout the play does. Shakespeare gives his audience exactly what they want (or what he believes they do) and believe, all while showing them why it is wrong, every step of the way. Even the way that Shylock is caught is absolutely wrong- these Christians, are, as mentioned above, worse than anything that Shylock could possibly have been- even with the exaggerated traits given to him by Shakespeare. His punishment is elegant, and far more cruel than just shooting him in the face would have been. And it certainly does not have that quality of mercy, whatever Antonio would like the audience to think. Shakespeare's poignant rendering of the realities of life as a member of an inferior sect in domestic or world society, and what those in positions of power feel entitled to do to you, is both subtle and in your face, and draws both laughter and anger at once. Beyond brilliant, really.

In any case- this is worth reading, as a brilliant, very brave, social commentary, as an interesting historical document, and as a beautifully written treatise on a number of very touchy subjects. It is absolutely worth the read, and I will probably read parts of it again as I wrestle with what I feel about it- but don't come in here looking for a story, or for people, for you will walk out quite disappointed. I don't think this is a bad thing- knowing the play's focus and limitations, rather (at least for me), allows one a window into appreciating a hidden, manic brilliance that might otherwise have remained hidden in the muck and sewer rotting garbage.

And such a want-wit sadness makes of me,
That I have much ado to know myself.

Antonio's lines open the play- I choose to read this as a disclaimer from Shakespeare, perhaps a statement of his own mind in setting these sometimes ugly, complicated thoughts to paper. A plea to look under rocks and among the worms, if we must, to find the beauty.

Do. It is worth it.

[Dolors · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maybe because I read this play with the famous controversy of its antisemitism on my mind, or because I expected a true hearted villain, “Iago fashion”, in the Jewish usurer Skylock, but I reached the last scene of the play with the extraordinary sensation that the Jew’s failure to execute the bloodthirsty bond was more of an anecdote than a climatic victory over evil.

Shakespeare’s precise wordplay presents a flesh and bone figure in Shylock, a flawed human being, a man who has been mocked and persecuted by his Christian antagonists and who seeks disproportionate revenge out of hurt pride and blind rage. He is not wicked by nature; the Jew has a motive to retaliate, either with or without the weight of morality on his side, and that is precisely what makes him such a believable character.

And then, there is Portia. Portia, Oh Portia. To me, Portia is the great revelation of the play. A beautiful orphan, wealthy but not spoiled, ready to follow his deceased father’s will and marry the man who sees beyond appearances. A woman with passion and brains that outshines her dull peers by daring to break the rules and suspend her role as a subservient female in order to save the day.
Her transfiguration and disarming display of acumen in the court scene, followed by the allegorical teasing of the ring played on her dumfounded new husband Bassanio is enough to place Portia among sassy heroines the caliber of Beatrice, Kate or Hermione.

There is nothing to miss in this first-rate comedy, the best I have read so far.
Fast-paced bantering, misused words over-brimming with jocular double meaning, a fool who is wise enough to choose the winning side, three romances that culminate in a great party and metaphoric sagacity in the form of playful riddles.
Beyond the literal plotline, there is a universe of challenged beliefs where apparently righteous characters are not essentially good, scheming misers are not outright scoundrels and damsels in distress, mere objects of male protection.
Shakespeare flips the coin fast enough to confuse the casual reader, but if one reads between the lines, he’ll meet defiant nonconformity in its most elegant disguise.
More like this, please!

[Brina · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare is the old classics selection for catching up on classics for September 2016. This comedy, first printed in 1609 five years prior to Shakespeare's death, offers many pressing issues of its day that are unfortunately still relevant today. It is still widely studied in schools yet is banned in many places as well due to its anti-Semitic portrayal of Jews and some lewdness. It is in this light that I discuss the Bard's work.

Jews had been banned from England in 1290, so it is highly unlikely that Shakespeare came across many Jews during his lifetime. His portrayal of Shylock as a greedy moneylender is considered stereotypical by many. Other scholars, however, have created rumors that perhaps Shakespeare himself was Jewish and that his creation of Shylock was to bring awareness the poor treatment of Jews throughout Europe. The fact that this play was published in the First Folio after the Bard's death makes one question if perhaps Shakespeare himself did not write this particular play, but maybe a ghost writer, specifically a Jewish born ghost writer, did. Regardless, Shylock's character, including his "Hath not a Jew eyes..." speech remains memorable these 420 years later.

Additionally, Shakespeare has created strong female characters in this play, both Portia of Belmont and Jessica, Shylock's daughter. I recently read Macbeth where Lady Macbeth is more ruthless and calculating than her husband. In The Merchant of Venice, Portia uses a mind game to find a worthy suitor and later on disguises herself as a lawyer in order to free her husband's dear friend Antonio from Shylock's bond. I remember all these years later being naturally drawn toward Portia's strong character when I read this play in school, which is why I feel that schools select this work so that girls have a protagonist that they are captivated by while reading.

While the Merchant of Venice is officially deemed a comedy because three sets of characters marry, the play also contains dramatic elements. I am more drawn toward the intrigue in tragedies, so, naturally, the plot involving Antonio's bond to Shylock in order to assist Bassanio in wooing Portia, held my attention more than the actual romance involving Portia and Bassanio as well as Nerissa and Gratiano. Additionally, the role of Jews' in society which lead Jessica to renounce her Judaism in order to marry Lorenzo, was heart rending to me, as opposed to romantic. Interestingly enough, the last play of Shakespeare's that I read discussed little of the world at large but chose to focus on the characters themselves. This leads me to question if the rumor to whether or not the Bard penned all of his plays actually contains a kernel of truth.

I enjoyed reading The Merchant of Venice for the first time in nearly twenty years. It is eye opening through adult eyes the roles of both Jews and women in Shakespearean works. Was the bard an anti-Semitic Englishman renouncing Jews or a Jewish ghost writer warning Europeans of Jews' plight. The fact that scholars are still debating this question over 400 years later is a testament to the Bard's place in written history. It was a treat to revisit this work, which I rate 5 huge stars for its societal awareness and timelessness.

[Gabriel · Rating 4 out of 5]

No me esperaba que me fuera a gustar tantísimo.

Bien sabido tengo que entre mis lecturas principales van aquellas que contengan su buena dosis de drama, por lo tanto, en las obras de teatro lo primero que se me viene a la cabeza son las tragedias. De allí radica mis pocas expectativas con la comedia como género y más en el Teatro isabelino. Sin embargo, me trago mis palabras y he de decir que esto me ha encantado demasiado, me sorprendió para bien.

No puedo hablar del contenido más allá de que me ha gustado muchísimo el personaje de Porcia, me ha parecido un soplo de aire fresco porque precisamente el conflicto de la historia surge a raíz de ella y es ella misma quien toma cartas en el asunto para poder solucionar el lío que se ha armado de comienzo a fin, con el protagonista y deuteragonista masculinos.

Es una obra con mucho contenido antisemita por lo que no me podía esperar que personajes como Shylock o Jessica fueran bien retratados más allá de ser encasillados por estereotipos y prejuicios que se supone tienen todos los judíos, a base de generalizaciones y maltrato verbal, psicólogico y físico de una sociedad evidentemente racista. En fin, aún así a día de hoy, me resulta más fácil empatizar con él (Shylock) que con los otros por mucho que se considere el villano de la obra. Para mí está claro que es una víctima más, que solo sabe gestionar el odio con más odio exacerbado.

Y por último pero no menos importante, los diálogos son maravillosos, brillantes, punzantes e intensos. Muy despiertos, críticos y que reflejan a su vez el retrato sociológico del siglo en el que salió esto a la luz.

[فايز غازي Fayez Ghazi · Rating 3 out of 5]

- مرت سنوات عديدة على قراءتي لهذه المسرحية، اتذكر انني انبهرت بها اكثر في المرة الأولى!

- القصص المروية ليست بنات افكار شكسبير فقد كانت تتناقل على الألسنة كأساطير وحكايات، لكن شكسبير صبّها في قالب واحد واعطاها من قدرته اللغوية بعداً آخر (ولذلك احب ان اقرأها بترجمة خليل مطران(شاعر القطرين) على الدوام).

- ان انتقاء الشخصيات اتى موفقاً من قبل شكسبير، فالشر المطلق كان "شيلوك" اليهودي، والخير المطلق كان "أنطونيو" المسيحي، لكن شكسبير لا يصوب على اليهود بل يحاول ايجاد المبرر لفعلهم وذلك في الخطاب الأول ل "شيلوك"(ص63:أليس غذاؤه مما يتغذى به النصراني؟ أليست الآلة التي تجرح أحدهما تجرح الآخر؟ أليس العلاج الذي يشفي ذاك يشفي هذا؟ أليس الشتاء والصيف واحدًا لكليهما؟ ألسنا إذا وخزتمونا ننزف دمًا، وإذا دغدغتمونا نضحك، وإذا سقيتمونا السم نموت، وإذا آذيتمونا ننتقم؟ فنحن نشبهكم بهذا كما نشبهكم بكل ما سواه. أما جزاء اليهودي الذي يضربمسيحي أن يثأر منه؟ إذن فاليهودي وقد ائتسى بأسوة النصارى أن يثأر منهم إن أضروا به. سأعاملكم بمثل الشدة التي تعاملوني بها أو أزيد.") لكن شكسبير يعود لاحقاً لتحقير "شيلوك" برفضه ان يرحم "أنطونيو" ويأتي ب "برسيا" التي تقول الخطاب الثاني الممتاز في هذه المسرحية (ص84: جمال الرحمة أن تكون خيارًا لا اضطرارًا، فهي كماء السماء ينهمل بالخير، ويهطل باليمن عفوًا ممن وهب، وبركة لمن كسب. فإذا كانت الرحمة عفوًا صادرًا عن مقدرة فهنالك بهاء قدرتها، وازدهار جلالها...") "برسيا" المخادعة، الذكية، القوية هي الشخصية الفذة في هذه المسرحية وكل شيئ يدور حولها.

-

[Paul Haspel · Rating 5 out of 5]

The merchant Antonio of Venice has been cruel to Shylock – gratuitously and publicly cruel. Indeed, Antonio has spat upon Shylock in public, kicked Shylock in public, for no other reason than that his society permits him to treat people of a minority religion demeaningly: and that is the first thing that one must keep in mind when reading William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. This “problem comedy” has a lot of problematic aspects, to be sure, but it can also offer many rewards to the careful reader or the thoughtful playgoer.

As the play begins, that “merchant of Venice,” Antonio, states that he is afflicted with an unaccountable melancholy: “In sooth, I know not why I am so sad.” Expressing no hope for finding happiness for himself – “I hold the world but as the world…/A stage, where every man must play a part,/And mine a sad one” – Antonio settles for trying to use his money and power to help his friend, the noble but poor Bassanio, win the hand of Portia, a young and beautiful woman who is also heiress to a vast fortune.

Gratiano, Antonio’s friend, does his level best to talk Antonio out of his melancholy mood. Rather like Mercutio with Romeo, Gratiano declares that melancholy is often but a pose of wisdom: he gently mocks Antonio's serious disposition by declaring that “I am Sir Oracle,/And when I ope my lips, let no dog bark!” Bassanio, for his part, dismisses Gratiano’s attempts at humour, stating that “Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice.” Yet it is ironic that Gratiano, in his attempts to cheer Antonio out of melancholy, says to him, “Let me play the fool”; for Antonio himself will soon be fooled into making a potentially deadly bargain.

Portia, the brave and intelligent young woman who will emerge as the true hero of The Merchant of Venice, is introduced in terms that make her sound rather like Antonio, as she tells her waiting-woman Nerissa that “By my troth, Nerissa, my little body is aweary of this great world.” Because of her youth, beauty, and wealth, she is much sought by suitors; but her suitors are, by and large, a sorry lot, and she says of one, “God made him, and therefore let him pass for a man.” While she knows that she should be grateful for the advantages that she enjoys, she reflects wryly upon her tendency to sermonize against herself, stating that “It is a good divine that follows his own instructions.” Her hope of finding true love, rather than a strictly mercenary marriage arrangement, reinforces the play’s thematic idea that “All that glisters is not gold”.

Antonio meanwhile has contracted with the Jewish moneylender Shylock to borrow 3,000 ducats – a substantial sum – with repayment due in three months. Antonio and Shylock have a long history of mutual dislike; when Shylock speaks piously of Jacob in the Old Testament, Antonio’s response is to whisper to Bassanio, “Mark you this, Bassanio,/The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.” For his part, Shylock reminds Antonio that “You call me misbeliever, cutthroat dog,/And spit upon my Jewish gabardine”.

Nonetheless, Shylock agrees to lend Antonio the requested money; and, pretending that it is all in a spirit of fun, stipulates that the forfeit, if Antonio fails to repay the debt on time, will be “an equal pound/Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken/In what part of your body pleaseth me.” The original “pound of flesh” deal has been entered upon.

The premise of this supposed comedy is so grim and heavy that it makes sense that Shakespeare places strong emphasis on “low comedy,” through the character of Launcelot Gobbo, Shylock’s servant. While deliberating on whether to leave Shylock’s employment, Launcelot briefly plays a oddly cruel practical joke on his blind old father, pretending to be a stranger reporting Launcelot's death! Finally, however, Launcelot reveals his true identity, and adding, in a reversion of a proverb of Shakespeare's time, “It is a wise father than knows his own child.” Like many others among Shakespeare’s fools, Launcelot Gobbo has some wisdom to offer, as when he suggests that “Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long…in the end truth will out.”

Indeed, there is more trouble in Shylock’s household than the moneylender realizes. His daughter Jessica, who is in love with a young Venetian named Lorenzo, disguises herself as a boy so she can leave Shylock’s house and elope with Lorenzo, remarking in the process that “love is blind, and cannot see/The pretty follies that themselves commit”.

But “what news on the Rialto?” (a phrase that reminds me of what a novel thing it was to read The Merchant of Venice while visiting Venice - to say "what news on the Rialto?" while walking on the historic bridge that was the heart of the Venetian finance community, like Wall Street in New York.)

Evidently, the gossip on the Rialto, and throughout the central financial district of Venice, deals with the business reverses that Antonio has been facing, as one after another of his ships is reported to have wrecked – increasing the prospect that Antonio may have to pay Shylock that pound of flesh after all. Shylock, asked by Antonio’s friends Salerio and Solanio why he will insist on the actual pound of flesh – after all, it will have no financial value, and he can gain no profit from it – responds with one of the most famous speeches in the play:

“I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, 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….The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”

Perhaps we have reached here a good place at which to address claims that this play is anti-Semitic. There is no question that Elizabethan drama was filled with anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jewish characters – almost invariably moneylenders (Christians in states like Venice were not allowed to lend money at interest). These Jewish characters in Elizabethan plays are almost invariably stereotypical foils – obsessed with religious difference, contemptuous of Christians, ever looking to achieve some sort of victory over members of the majority religion. I understand the reasons why many Jewish readers of this play are highly offended by it – and why The Merchant of Venice continues be one of the Shakespeare plays mostly frequently challenged at, or banned from, American schools and libraries.

But Shakespeare seems to be doing something here that is quite different from what other writers of his time were doing. While the reader or playgoer may disapprove of any character, from any background, seeking revenge, the fact remains that Shylock has understandable motivations for seeking revenge against a man who has regularly assaulted and humiliated him; Shylock’s is not “motiveless malignity” like that of Iago from Othello or Don John from Much Ado About Nothing.

Furthermore, Shylock may be another example of Shakespeare’s interest in the perspective of the outsider. As a man of artistic insight in a world of materialistic getting and spending, Shakespeare may have felt very much an outsider in his own time and place. It may therefore be no accident that Shakespeare often wrote about outsiders – Othello as a black man in a white world; Hamlet as a Renaissance man of reason in a medieval world of revenge; women like Twelfth Night’s Viola or As You Like It's Rosalind, who must disguise themselves as men in order to survive in a man’s world. Shylock, as a Jewish man in a Christian world, fits well within that continuum. The revenge that he is seeking is wrong; but many people of every religion, or of no religion at all, have sought wrongful revenge from just the same sort of motivations.

Moreover, Shakespeare shows the illogic and irrationality of prejudice at a number of points throughout the play. When Launcelot the clown jokes with Jessica, after her successful elopement with Lorenzo, he states his belief – or his pretended belief – that Jessica is inevitably damned as the daughter of a Jewish man, even if she converts to Christianity, as “the sins of the father are to be laid upon the children.” When Jessica protests that she plans to convert to Christianity, Launcelot protests that increasing the number of Christians will have its own set of adverse effects: “We were Christians enow before….This making of Christians will raise the price of hogs. If we grow all to be pork-eaters, we shall not shortly have a rasher on the coals for money.”

While couched in terms of verbal humour – the kind of verbal wordplay that Elizabethan audiences expected from their drama – the dialogue raises a serious point: those people of one group who are prejudiced against members of another group will always find a rationalization, or an excuse, for continuing in their prejudiced thinking.

Meanwhile, the love between Bassanio and Portia blossoms, as Bassanio successfully negotiates the marriage game ordained by Portia’s late father, choosing correctly among three caskets to the accompaniment of a song that asks, “Tell me, where is fancy bred,/Or in the heart, or in the head?” – an apt lyric in the context of a developing love relationship.

But the courtship is temporarily interrupted when Portia and Bassanio learn that the time for the payment of Antonio’s pound-of-flesh forfeit is at hand; and both characters – Portia separately, and disguised as a man – make their way from Portia’s Belmont estate to the Venice courtroom where Antonio’s case is to be decided. It is at this point that The Merchant of Venice provides some of the finest courtroom drama in Shakespeare’s entire oeuvre.

Antonio, fully believing that he is about to suffer a slow and painful death, rises to a sense of tragic dignity: "I am a tainted wether of the flock,/Meetest [most appropriate] for death." Portia has meanwhile arrived at the court, disguised as the brilliant young male lawyer Balthasar, of whom a letter of reference says that "I never knew so young a body with so old a head." Portia undertakes the defence of Antonio in the Venetian courtroom; and it is in this context that Portia offers her plea on behalf of mercy, in perhaps the most famous poetic passage from this play:

“The quality of mercy is not strained,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest –
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes.
’Tis mightiest in the mightiest. It becomes
The thronèd monarch better than his crown.
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.”

It may be the most eloquent defence of mercy in all of literature. Mercy is an absolute: it cannot be portioned out. It either exists or does not exist. It is a higher and nobler form of power than the power to enforce law through punishment. It is the way in which a human being approaches closest to the power and majesty of God.

Shylock rejects this plea for mercy; he is absolutely determined upon revenge – not because he is Jewish, but because he has committed himself to bad moral choices. But Portia still has a couple of tricks up her men’s-clothing sleeve – one that any fan of last-minute theatrics in courtroom drama will appreciate. It out-Grishams Grisham.

Indeed, it is such a great scene, one of Shakespeare’s best, that the only thing that is wrong with it is that it all happens in Act IV, scene i. There is still half of one act and all of another to go, much of which is taken up by some not-terribly-engaging mistaken-identity comedy. Yet even here, there are some interesting things going on.

Lorenzo and Jessica, newly married, await Portia at Belmont. Lorenzo is entranced by the romantic quality of the evening and the beauty of his young wife: he remarks, "How sweet the moonlight sleeps upon this bank", and adds, "The moon shines bright. In such a night as this..." Jessica, by contrast, states that "I am never merry when I hear sweet music." Lorenzo can complain that Jessica's not getting into the spirit of things - "The man that hath no music in himself...Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils" - but I think Lorenzo is missing the point. Jessica has given up much - the religious faith of her birth and upbringing, her relationship with a father who clearly loved her - to be with Lorenzo. Perhaps, at this point in her life, she is wondering just how happy her happy ending is really going to be.

Portia meanwhile remains the moral centre of the play. Seeing the lights of Belmont as she and Nerissa arrive there, she remarks, "How far that little candle throws his beams!/So shines a good deed in a naughty world."

Against the perfect peace of that beautiful northeastern-Italian evening - "Peace - how the moon sleeps with Endymion/And would not be awaked!" - Portia and Nerissa play their little practical joke against Bassanio and Gratiano. I'm not quite sure what purpose it all serves - except, perhaps to provide one more example of marginalized outsiders (women, in this instance) getting the better of the insiders: upper-class Christian white men who enjoy exclusive access to full power and participation in the Venice of Shakespeare's play, as they did in the England of Shakespeare's time.

Notwithstanding the anti-climactic quality of this last part of the play, The Merchant of Venice is a powerful drama that raises troubling questions about human community, prejudice, and cultural identity.

[Saranya ⋆☕︎ ˖ (hibernating) · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the few Shakespearean plays that is not a tragedy (not from Shylock's point of view). That is why it's my most favourite.

We had to read this for our sophomore year at high school. And I had memorized the whole play by heart!! Ahh my favourite thing to do back then was to read Merchant of Venice everyday haha
My boy-classmates used to argue with our teacher saying that it was Portia's fault that Antonio had to go through so much. It was her existence!!!??
Like- are you serious? How is this a woman's fault? Misogynists bruhhh

I'd say it was Bassanio's. Had he not been too reckless with his fortunes.. Had he not been a prodigal he would not have to ask for loan from Antonio and then Shylock.
Stupid boys (from my class).

I loved Shylock's monologue.

𝘛𝘰 𝘣𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘭. 𝘐𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦.
𝘏𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯; 𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴, 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴, 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴, 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯? 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘢 𝘑𝘦𝘸.
𝘏𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘑𝘦𝘸 𝘦𝘺𝘦𝘴?
𝘏𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘑𝘦𝘸 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴, 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴?
𝘍𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘥 ���𝘺 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.

Ahh! And this statement by Portia- 🔥🔥

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥.
𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯
𝘜𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘸𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥:
𝘐𝘵 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴.
'𝘛𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵. 𝘐𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘯è𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯.
𝘏𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳,
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘺
𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴,
𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘸𝘢𝘺.
𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘯è𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴.
𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧.
𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘴𝘵
𝘎𝘰𝘥’𝘴 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘑𝘦𝘸,
𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘢, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴-
𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘴
𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘞𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘺,
𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘺. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩
𝘛𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘢,
𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘝𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘦
𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 '𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦.

[Lyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

If this had a secondary title, delivered in "the parlance of our times" it would be THE POUND OF FLESH.

I liked this for many reasons but the element that stands out most is Shakespeare's focus. Many of his plays have various, complex, and intertwined sub-plots, some being more interesting than the theme itself, TMOV is focused and almost relentless, we have one simple course of action that the story leads inevitably towards and which keeps the reader and the audience entranced, will Shylock really remain intent on claiming his bond?

Even the Duke seems ready to predict that Shylock will relent at the end and just take the money. Other fascinating themes explored are the love of money and love itself, both in romantic terms and in friendship. While Antonio and Portia present complex and thoroughly entertaining Shakespearean characterizations, Shylock, of course, steals the show.

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 5 out of 5]

“One had best state this matter very plainly: To recover the comic splendor of The Merchant of Venice now, you need to be either a scholar or an anti-Semite, or best of all an anti-Semitic scholar.”
~ Harold Bloom

***

See how yond justice rails upon yond simple thief.
Hark in thine ear: change places, and handy-dandy,
which is the justice, which is the thief?
~ King Lear (IV.vi.151–4)

***

“Which is the merchant here? and which the Jew?”
~ The Merchant of Venice

THE BLACK SWAN OF VENICE

The traditional interpretations are usually on the lines of ‘accept the play as what it is - a comedy that utilizes stereotypes’  or on ‘Shakespeare managed to use a stereotype and yet humanized him and created one of the great characters in theatre’. Truly, the scope and diversity of theatrical interpretations of the Merchant are extraordinary, and there have been many new and exciting attempts at understanding the play over the centuries. In addition, its racism has often been reversed in performance, converted into an eloquent plea for human equality. Indeed, in some ways the play has been instrumental in changing people’s perceptions of the Jewish community, and it therefore occupies a valuable place in world culture.

It is said that Merchant of Venice is one of the most performed plays of all time and has continuously been in production for over 300 years now. Is there a reason why it is so popular? It is partly due precisely to this breadth of interpretation that is possible, and partly due to the immense challenge thrown up by the character of Shylock.

Shylock can be interpreted in many ways on the stage. He can be seen as a simple comic villain who occasionally reveals sympathetic qualities. Or he can be a tragic hero, a spurned and battered victim of oppression, who tries unsuccessfully to challenge the society that oppresses him. Similarly, the Christians can be saintly personifications of charity and mercy, or hypocritical money-grubbers. It may seem strange that a play can produce such divergent readings, but they are, in fact, a result of the complexity of Shakespeare’s writing.

It is a play that is curiously capable of moulding itself to our present, we only have to project the current OTHER into the role of Shylock - as many directors over the centuries have done.

It allows reinterpretation as per this current Other - and can then be a vehicle for showcasing a sense of how a historic wrong is ripe for correction!

What this sort of interpretation of Merchant of Venice misses is that both Venice and Shylock were ‘The Other’ to each other. They were both incomprehensible to the other.

The Directorial Debut: A World Without Belmont

Keeping this in mind, now, if I were to direct the play today, I would focus on these things:

1. The risky speculative nature of Antonio's ventures.

2. The twisting of the laws by Portia to ‘bail out’ Antonio and to make Shylock bear the brunt of Antonio's speculations.

In a bit more detail, this would be my approach towards the production:



Shylock: Shakespeare uses ‘Jew’ and “Shylock’ in the play depending on whether he wants to humanize him or not. ‘Shylock’ is used where involvement in his feelings is indicated; and ‘Jew’ is used when Shakespeare sees him purely as a moneylender, as a stereotype. It is significant that at the very end, in the Trial Scene, ‘Shylock’ is used by Shakespeare and not ‘Jew’!

I would extend this to its extreme - humanize Shylock completely, strip him of his 'monstrosity' status and of his usurer brand and make him the common family man, downtrodden occasionally, trying to get by.

Antonio: is given no real reason for nobility in the play except his Christian credentials - I would strip him of those and make him just what he is, a speculator with many failings with no cushion of Christianity to fallback on. A quintessential Wall-Street figure.

I might or might not keep the personal enmity between Shylock and Antonio. That would add dramatic value, but serves no purpose as far as my core message is concerned.



Belmont: An outlandish element of this most realistic of Shakespeare’s plays is Belmont - the land of magic where casket-tests and ring-tests determine 'true love' and fidelity, where pure love always wins  - a fairy tale land. It is a world where money has no role, where no class differences occur (or are not allowed since only the privileged enter!) because the oppressed don’t have a role (notice, no Jews in Belmont!), which might have been an impossible but still acceptable dream for much of human history (Voltaire-like), but which crumpled maybe around the middle of this century, with our disillusionment with European dreams of any poised land. We don't have a place for such a trope in our production.

The Merchant of Venice is a very serious play - Shakespeare made it a romantic comedy by nesting the parallel story of Belmont and its idealism, its fairy tale caskets, the Jason-like Quest etc.

But we don’t have to take it with the same levity. We can take it more seriously. We can consider a world without Belmont!

My play would then be set in this “World Without Belmont”.

Shylock, even back then, is a controversial figure for villain and has not been accepted as such for a long time now. Shall we have another villain for ourselves? - Let me present to you, Antonio!

Here, Antonio becomes a Speculator who uses borrowed money to finance risky expeditions on a false sense of self-assurance, in spite of being warned right at the beginning of the play by all his friends - ignorantly over-confident, and rather stupid because he is so lacking in common sense.

When they do choose,

They have the wisdom by their wit to lose.

Shylock becomes the common man who was assured that his money would never be risked (a ‘merry bond’ sold to him??) and Bassanio becomes the Aristocracy who meanwhile uses the public money for self-indulgence and exotic adventures.

If you sympathize with Shylock, then you must turn against Portia.

~ E. E. Stoll

Portia: Portia, in my production, becomes the conservative defender (who is also not above some blatant racism!) of these values who would try to get the state to sponsor these extravagances and is even wiling to twist the law - a complete Deux Ex Machina - are we really to think Shylock, and anybody else, did not know of these laws that Portia presents? To me Portia has used their assumption of her competence to full advantage. The only way to explain it would be ‘Poetic Justice’ or more crassly - Cheating!

Portia does this 'twisting' to try and make the poor Shylock shell out even more of his personal fortune, who is almost struck dumb when the State and Law that he had placed his belief on turn on him - “Is that the law?" is all he can ask. He was absolutely certain that his trust in the law was inviolate. The Law and the State that he believed to be so solid crumbles before him. He sees what power privilege has in this world.

And I beseech you,

Wrest once the law to your authority.

To do a great right, do a little wrong,

And curb this cruel devil of his will.

Thus making Shylock representative of the common man, who is a mirror to the society’s worst atrocities - by trying to take exacting revenge on the Wall-street speculator Antonio; and by trying to point out the many wrongs of his society, such as slavery back then or enforced poverty today. The common man, whose tax dollars and life-savings are used to finance the risky ventures of the Antonios and the Bassanios.

Of course, they don’t have to worry, the conservative state represented by the Duke (talk of an impartial judge - he starts the trial by calling Shylock names! And proceeds to threaten to annul the whole thing when Shylock seemed on the verge of winning) and by Portia, who will, with her ingenious manipulations of the law, ensure that Shylock not only loses but also accepts their value systems! “I am content” he says and disappears from the play, into the black-hole that is the State - an Orwellian vision.

Portia: Art thou contented, Jew? What dost thou say?

Shylock: I am content.

In this ‘World Without Belmont’, we have to notice that the upholding of Justice is done not for nobility or any love of justice for its own sake but to ensure that the ‘too big to fail’ establishments are not allowed to sink - just as “The trade and profit of the city” of Portia’s Venice depends on the confidence foreigners have in Venetian law. Thus it is not love of justice for her own sake, but mere self-interest, that keeps our play’s world within the law.

Thus, going from the ‘New Comedy’ aspect of Merchant of Venice to a full blown Tragedy, I would end my modern production with this Shylock slighted and stolen of his possessions, the Antonios and Bassanios happy in the thought that they can continue their indulgences at the expense of the public, while strictly following the letter of the law, no less… and a dark foreboding of when this whole structure will collapse, no matter how well hedged by class distinctions and 'just' laws.

Encore: “Which is the merchant here? and which the Jew?”

[Michael Finocchiaro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Besides being a great Shakespeare play, this is an entertaining read. However, what sticks in my mind was the interruption at the Comédie Française when I saw this performed (in French!) by some Zionist activists in the middle of the play decrying the anti-Semitism of the work. So, yes, there is a stereotypical character in the book that is Jewish and it is not a complimentary positive portrait. But to label the entire work as anti-Semitic seems a little much for me. Shakespeare was, of course, a creature of his time and his times - Elizabethan England - were not particularly fantastic for those of the Jewish fate, but they were not the programs of 19c and 20c Eastern Europe and Russia either.

In her excellent book that reviews all of Shakespeare's plays, Shakespeare After All, Marjorie Garber points out that the interpretation of Shylock has evolved from a comic, clownish figure in Elizabethan times to a more post-modern tragic role. I felt that despite Shylock being a relatively mono-dimensional character obsessed with money (and thus conforming to a certain stereotype towards Jewish people that unfortunately continues today in some circles), Jessica, his daughter, is independent, beautiful and marries Lorenzo while securing her future by taking her inheritance from Shylock when she elopes dressed as a man. In other words, she was a relatively strong, forceful character and more three-dimensional which sort of serves as a counterbalance to Shylock. Of course, both convert (Shylock by necessity and Jessica by marriage) to Christianity, but this is where we are obliged to place the play into the context of Elizabethan England from which Jews had been expelled three centuries before and which was overwhelmingly Christian and liberated from Roman Catholicism due to her father, Henry VIII.

As Ms. Garber points out, what makes for powerful and enduring literature, besides strong character development and plot, is the ambiguities that the work creates as it does not answer all our questions. It is neither half-full nor half-empty, but more like Schrodinger's cat in some kind of nebulous vaccuum. It is up to the reader to supply his/her own narrative and decide whether they are challenged in their "idées reçus" or not.

I found that it was an interesting play where we follow two melancholy protagonists who are both in love to some degree or another with Bassanio: Antonio is willing to risk his life for him and Portia marries him. Shakespeare is nearly without equal in creating parallel situations and weaving a story around their trajectories. In Merchant, we have a tale with wonderful, cross-dressing female protagonists like in Midsummer's Night Dream and others, and each of these female characters is strong and intelligent. In fact, I am finding as I read all of the plays more or less in order, that the women in his plays are more intelligent and often deeper than the male characters. And what is even more interesting about that, is that they were played by young men or boys in Shakespeare's time (not until under the Restoration of Charles II in about 1660 were women allowed to act on stage in England, so nearly 45 years after the Bard's death) which adds a whole other dimension to the shape-shifting aspect of the play.

Read Merchant and be transported to Venice, try to hear the gondoliers singing on the canals and the water lapping on the side of the quai and turn a deaf ear to Solanio and Solario's anti-semitic rants, and instead enjoy the parallel situations and the wonderful speeches.

Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)

Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)

Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)

Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro

Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Book Review
3 of 5 stars to The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare. My review is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on appearance versus reality in Shakespeare's plays. In many of William Shakespeare’s famous plays, reality was not quite what it appeared to be. Instead, it was a rather warped appearance that someone molded in a specific way for a particular reason. Reality has been altered in Shakespeare’s plays often by characters who have been known to lie, scheme, and create facades, just so that they could be with the ones they love. When fate intervened in this type of a situation and created an obstacle between the true loves, Portia, the main character in Merchant of Venice, disguised herself as a lawyer to free her love, Bassanio, from the evil Shylock’s clutches. She also altered reality by disguising herself to her husband so that she could see what their wedding rings meant to him. However, this deception, although intended for good purposes, usually ended in disaster. It just goes to show that honesty is always the best policy. Never deceive fate by changing reality, and interpreting [from it] a new appearance that you want other to see.

Portia had already been through an appearance vs. reality problem when it came to her potential suitor’s choosing of the caskets. They could choose from gold, silver, and lead. The first two appeared to be wonderful gifts from God, but in reality, the most worthless one, the lead, turned out to be the best coffin to pick. If you did, like one person did, you would win Portia’s hand in marriage. Luckily, the first two gentleman chose the wrong casket, and then when it came time for Bassanio to choose a casket, he chose the correct one. Thus, it lead to the marriage between Portia and Bassanio. Bassanio’s best friend Antonio, however, was in need of dire help. Portia decided to help her husband’s friend Antonio. Antonio had borrowed money from a man named Shylock to back Bassanio’s ships in the waters nearby. However, the ships never came back to port, and so Shylock wanted his money back from Antonio. The agreement that was made was that Shylock was due one pound’s flesh if he didn’t receive any money. Bassanio didn’t want to let his friend Antonio die from his debt, either. Eventually, Portia and her lady-in-waiting came up with a plan to disguise themselves and become a doctor and his clerk. This plan again alters reality to suit her own purpose. She needed to help her friend Antonio, so she put on a new appearance. She played the doctor who told Shylock he had permission to take his flesh from Antonio, but he best be careful not to shed any of Antonio’s blood during it, because that is illegal. Also, they revealed the Venetian law that states if any foreigner kills a Venetian, all of his money is to be taken from him. Shylock gives in and decides not to take his flesh from Antonio. In the end, Portia’s trickery and deceit works, but still, she had to disfigure the state of reality that Venice was in because she wanted to help her husband Bassanio.

Similarly, Portia decides to put on another disguise to test her husband’s loyalty. She again plays with the appearance of things and creates a false appearance like Juliet did in Romeo and Juliet. Portia, as the doctor talks to Bassanio about being paid for having saved Antonio’s life. Bassanio tires to give her money, but she refuses saying that all she wants is the ring on his hand. Bassanio thinks back to when it was given to him. Portia had said “I gave them with his ring, which when you part from, lose, or give away, let it presage the ruin of your love, and be my vantage to exclaim on you” (3.2.171-174). Bassanio had given her his word that he would never take it off. Well, after Portia, as the disguised man, chides Bassanio for keeping it because his woman told him to, Bassanio hands over the ring. When he later returns to Portia, she notices that his ring is gone and yells at him for it. She thinks he doesn’t love her and is reckless. All the while, Portia has set this whole game up to test her husband. Portia’s plays with reality for the fun of it really. She wants to be sure of her husband’s love for her, but she has no right to alter her appearance and trick him. He is a man of equal measure to her and everyone else.

Portia and Bassanio end up fighting about the loss, but Bassanio ends up vowing never to get rid of the ring again after she tells him what she did. She is constantly switching back and forth from reality, to her perception of it, to the perception she gives to others of reality that she eventually almost messes up the entire situation. Portia wasn’t altogether truthful with her husband with what she did. If she had been though, he would not have given the ring away. Therefore, by playing with the views others see of reality, particularly her husband’s, she tempts fate. If she had never done anything, her husband Bassanio and her wouldn’t have fought and they would have lived happily ever after. However, she doesn’t. They end up talking about it and forgiving each other, but surely there will always be doubt in the back of their minds about what the other is up to. Bassanio may wonder if she is just playing games with him, and Portia may wonder if he will really hold onto the ring for next time. Leave well enough alone and let fate and reality take their course rather than warp the appearance of things for your own purpose.

About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by. Note: All written content is my original creation and copyrighted to me, but the graphics and images were linked from other sites and belong to them. Many thanks to their original creators.

[Luffy Sempai · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe I'm being slightly harsh with my rating. I read this play and immediately thought I'll rate it 5 stars. But I rescinded this idea. Hear me out. I realized that it was an outdated model of storytelling.

I also realized that there's not many adaptations of this story of Shakespeare. We get lots of Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado About Nothing, even the ambitious Othello or Midsummer Night's Dream.

The Merchant of Venice is at heart a simplistic story with people in love but it's not a love story. It has a villain, but is not heavily invested in action. It's a living fossil, and I mean that amicably. It's a wondrous fossil. Let's leave it at that.

[Nayra.Hassan · Rating 4 out of 5]

شايلوك أيها الطفيلي الاناني:تسمح لي امنحك انحناءة شكر رقيقة!فانت سبب حبي للادب
شايلوك ايها المرابي الشره:لن انساك مهما قرأت..فساظل اقيس شر البطل من خيره عليك
شايلوك ايها المخادع الماكر: تذكرني دائما بجملة "أخذ الحق صنعة"و

ان المرأة اذا أرادت..تنتصر على من هو أسوأ منك

شيلوك المرابي الذي يبني ثراؤه على شقاء من يقع في يده💸
..يقع بين براثنه أنطونيو النبيل الذي يرفض نشاطه و يفسده عليه :بأن يقرض كل ذي حاجة بلا ربح..و يتاجر بشرف مما يجلب على مجتمعه الخير..و ها قد سنحت الفرصةلشايلوك ليصمم على استقصاء حقه من انطونيو باخذ رطل من لحمه ..لآ يعوضه عن الرطل..آلاف العملات الذهبية

لم يسترسل شكسبير في تركيز كل الرذائل اليهودية في شايلوك..بل منحه كل صفات الأقليات اليهودية عندما تنحصر في ظروف اقتصادية و زمنية و اجتماعية..فتراه انعزالي؛ يرى في💰 المال صاحبه و نجاته..يبتلع الإهانة في غل ويتحين الفرص للانتقام و لا يسمح للرحمة بشق طريقها اليه

النجمة 🌟الناقصة لانني حتى و انا في سن 13عندما درستها لم ابتلع ابدا الأسباب التي دعت انطونيو للاقتراض ممن يحتقره و يسبه و يبصق عليه بل و انه يؤكد له و هو يقترض منه انه :يحتقره و كل هذا لماذا؟؟..ليتزوج صديقه المسرف؟؟؟! حقا
..يا له من سبب قهري رهيب
..عموما الحلو مايكملش ..
كل هذا التلفيق تحملته لانه سبب لظهور : بورشيا القوية الذكية الثريةالماكرة بطلتي الشكسبيرية المفضلة للابد :أو لارا كروفت شكسبير

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
- William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 3



There is something about Shylock that I absolutely love. He is huge. His hatred and his disdain for Venice's Christians throbs like a heart ready to burst. There is no rest nor slumber to his antipathy. Somehow, this wicked caricature of both man and race I still, however, adore more than the self-righteous charm of the aggrieved Christians and the obviously biased "Doctor of Laws".

I want desperately to somehow tie this review into the current administration, but I'm not there yet. Close. There is something there. Something that steams, swells and billows. Something from the dark corners of the Oval office that screams "I'll have my bond; speak not against my bond: I have sworn an oath that I will have my bond..." No. Perhaps Shylock isn't Trump or Bannon. Perhaps Shylock is those angry voters who are willing to watch it all burn because they are tired of being screwed by the left or the right. They know their anger will eventually cost them everything, but there is a moment when we all want a pound of flesh.

Favorite Lines:

“I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano!” (Act 1, Scene 1)

“It is no mean happiness, therefore, to be seated in the mean.” (Act 1, Scene 2)

“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?" (Act 3, Scene 1).”

“So many the outward shows be least themselves. The world is still deceived with ornament.” (Act 3, Scene 2)

“The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds, Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils; The motions of his spirit are dull as night, And his affections dark as Erebus. Let no such man be trusted. Mark the music.” (Act 5, Scene 1)

[Obied Alahmed · Rating 5 out of 5]

مسرحية من أروع ما كتب شكسبير
تمتاز بروح تلك الفترة التي كانت الكتابات فيها تتحدث معظم الأحيان عن الصراع بين الخير والشر ، بين القيم العليا و القيم الدنيئة

لا أذكر عادة محتوى الروايات التي أقرأها لأن معظم من سبقني يكونون قد أعطو شرحا كافيا ووافيا

الغريب أن اليهود لم يلاحقوا شكسبير للمحاكمة كمعاد للسامية ولطلب تعويضات فقد نبشو قبور الاموات للمطالبة بحقوق مفتراة
ولكن ربما شهرة المؤلف وقدم تاريخ نشرها وأيضا الأمر الذي صاحب صدورها وهو أن الملكة "إليزابيث" قامت بإصدار أمر ملكى بدخول المسرحية بالسجل الملكى، ونشرها فى عمل مطبوع، فى عام 1598

كل هذا ربما حال دون دفنها رغم ما فضحت به طباع تجار اليهود

[Hailey (Hailey in Bookland) · Rating 5 out of 5]

*reread nov 2015*

Definitely one of my favourites.

[KSS · Rating 5 out of 5]

تاجر البندقية
لسنوات طويلة كنت أتعجب من الكراهية والبغضاء الشديدة التى يحملها الأوروبيين لليهود وكيف كانت فرحتهم بالتخلص من هذا الوباء بوعدهم بأرض لا يملكونها لشعب بلا أرض وبلا وطن .. هذه المسرحية التاريخية تروى قصة تاريخ كراهية معلنة بين الأوروبيين واليهود .. فاليهودى فى التاريخ هو المرابى وهو الذى أنشأ أول بنك للتسليف فى التاريخ هو من وضع السيف على رقبة المدين أنطونيو لأخذ قطعة من لحم جسمه عوضاً عن ثلاثة الآف تم عرض أضعافها عليه لترك أنطونيو فى حاله .. إلا أن اليهودى الذى يحاول أن يتمايز عن باقى خلق الله فلا يُؤاكل ولا يُشارب ولا يُشارك فى صلاته غير اليهودى لكنه يقرضهم أمواله بغية الثراء والربح الذى بلا تعب .. اليهودى الذى يكره أنطونيو المسيحى الذى يحرم عليه دينه أن يُقرض الناس بالربا ويرى اليهودى فى ذلك نوعاً من البله والغفلة.
يلخص شكسبير أزمة اليهود مع بنى البشر – مسلمين ومسيحيين وغيرهم - أجمعين فى حوار شيلوك مع أنطونيو:

لم ينسى شكسبير شيئاً من خصال اليهود فأتى على ذكر عدم الوفاء بالعهود فى حوار شيلوك وأنطونيو قبل إقراضه المال وإصراره على كتابة شرط إقتطاع اللحم من جسم أنطونيو وتعهده بأن هذا الشرط عربون صداقة وأنه لن يستفد شيئاً لو قام بإنفاذ هذا الشرط:

ويختم شكسبير خصال اليهود التى رآها والتى عاشها الأوروبيون فكان وعدهم بأرض فلسطين بمثابة الخلاص للشعوب الأوروبية من هذا الوباء اللعين وإيذاناً بانتقال هذا الوباء إلى أرض المسلمين وإلى قطعة من أطهر بقاع الأرض .. وقطعاً كُتبت هذه المسرحية فى القرن السادس عشر لكن سيظل تاريخ أوروبا مليئاً بالكراهية لهؤلاء الشرذمة إلى أن جُعلت لهم مستعمرات سكنية (جيتو) فى القرن العشرين ينأى بها الأوروبيون عنهم وعن شرورهم وينأون هم أيضاً بها عن الناس ويتمايزون عنهم فى الحياة والمعيشة أو يحاولون:

فى النهاية كل الشكر لمؤسسة هنداوى على الطبعة الرائعة والترجمة المميزة لهذه المسرحية.

[Duane Parker · Rating 4 out of 5]

It has been debated whether Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice is anti-semitic or whether he is trying to call attention to their plight in his time. Many modern readers lean toward the latter pointing to Shylock's profound speech in the trial scene (do I not bleed when you cut me?). It's up to the reader to form their own opinion because it's hard to know what Shakespeare was thinking 400 years after the fact.

From a pure readability standpoint, I thought the play was very good, one of Shakespeare's best so far for me. Probably the best group of characters of any of his plays that I have read. I really liked the strength of the female characters, especially Portia, who was very resourceful and ends up being the foil for Shylock where, in the courtroom scene, she delivers her famous "quality of mercy" speech.

4.5 stars

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

My daughter has to write an essay on this play and so we have been talking about it. It would be easy to say the play is anti-Semitic – there is no question that many of the characters we are expected to have the most sympathy with are certainly anti-Semitic. My problem is that I can’t watch this play and not end up feeling sorry for Shylock. Sure, he was going to kill someone who had spat on him in the street and despised him for his religion – but then, he would hardly have been the first person in the world to do that if given the chance. Still, his near total destruction on the basis of legal entrapment is anything but edifying.

This is a play about how the law is unlikely to be just unless it is tempered with mercy – although, this ‘lesson’ is one that is variously demonstrated through some of the major story-lines of the play. This is also, of course, a play about identity – who we are, who we would like to appear to be and who we find ourselves to be. It is hardly surprising that the night that Shylock’s daughter leaves her father’s house is a night when the local Christians roam the streets wearing masks and Shylock warns her to stay indoors. Many of the masks in this play are both metaphorical and literal.

During the trial Shylock asks, “What judgement shall I dread, doing no wrong?” And here is the key point of the play. Portia answers this in her rightly famous ‘Quality of mercy’ speech. “Therefore, Jew, though justice be thy plea, consider this, that in the course of justice none of us should see salvation: we do pray for mercy, and that same prayer doth teach us all to render to deeds of mercy.” That is, not even the best person that ever lived is good enough to deserve salvation – we are all, according to God’s law, ultimately sinners and deserving of damnation. Our being saved by God is not due to our deserving salvation, but rather it is an act of mercy gifted to us by God. The law is harsh, but it is made just by the application of mercy.

Now, the most obvious example of this law and mercy relationship is Shylock and his demanding the literal execution of the terms of his deed with Antonio. It is clear that the extraction of a pound of flesh from the body of Antonio is going to cause his death. But it is also clear that Shylock is within his legal right to demand the execution of their deed. It is also clear that he has real grievances against Antonio. The problem is that Shylock’s application of the law is anything but disinterested. As he says to Antonio, “Thou call’dst me a dog before thou had cause, but since I am a dog beware my fangs”. Few of us, Jewish or not, would be able to resist extracting a pound of flesh from our enemies if we thought we could do so with impunity. And Antonio is clearly an enemy of Shylock’s – a long-standing enemy who has mocked and ridiculed him (and worse) for being Jewish.

Venice is shocked that Shylock should seek to enact the terms of the deed – but what is interesting here is that Antonio entered into this deed with both eyes open. Sure, he thought he would be safe with money coming in ahead of time, but there is no question he entered the deed willingly. This puts the State in an interesting position in relation to the deed. They are forced to enact it, that is, until Portia comes along and, with what is supposed to be clever legal footwork (but is actually a terrible kind of entrapment – worse than we can accuse Shylock of – the outcome being certain in this case), she turns the tables on Shylock. He can have his pound of flesh, no more and no less, and must not spill a drop of blood in extracting it. Clearly, an impossible condition to comply with. Furthermore, because he has sought to kill a citizen of Venice he forfeits his life, with half of his property to the state and the other half to his victim. These terms are overturned (as a display of Christian mercy on behalf of the state and Antonio) but on condition he leaves his fortune to his run-away daughter’s new husband and also becomes a Christian. It is hardly a scene to cheer at. And I struggle to believe Shakespeare intended it as such. It is a bitter and pointless act by a state anything but disinterested and one that is devoid of anything approaching ‘justice’. And this is interesting, as Portia earlier explained that the arbitrary cancelling of the deed was impossible – it would be used as a precedent by others to excuse their own debts. But the sleight of hand she performs to entrap Shylock could hardly bring comfort to anyone from outside Venice entering into a contract with a citizen of Venice and their likely treatment of things go belly up. From the perspective of an outsider the story runs like this: two men freely enter into a contract, the terms of the contract were clearly known to both parties before their agreement, one party is unable to meet the terms of their contract, the other party demands the contract be enforced, for doing so he loses control of his own property and is forced to convert to the local religion. Is this a place where you would consider investing? It sounds like the kind of loan and contract you might receive from the IMF or the World Bank…

The relationship between the law and mercy (and thereby producing justice) isn’t very clear in the other stories in the play either. Firstly, there is Portia’s little predicament at the start of the play. Her father is dead, but to make sure she marries someone worthy of her he has set up a kind of parlour trick. There are three caskets and if her suitor picks the right one he will get the girl. How confident would you need to be of your ‘law’ – your belief that the person that picks the right casket will do so for all the right reasons – that you would stake your daughter’s life, fortune and happiness on it? This is made all the more ironic as Portia is clearly the most clever person in the play, but she is not trusted with any leeway in her choice of a husband – something I assume she would have at least as much interest in as her dead father. This is mandatory sentencing gone mad.

The other example is to do with the ring. When Portia becomes engaged to Bassanio she gives him a ring – the law in this situation being that he is not to take the ring off or to give it to anyone else, as it is a symbol of their love and to do such a thing would mean the end of their love. But Portia attends the court and frees Bassanio’s best friend, Anthony. They don’t realise who she is, (that game with identity that is played with throughout – husbands not recognising wives, fathers not recognising sons) she is dressed as a young man, and so they offer her lots of money – which she refuses. But she asks for Bassanio’s ring. This puts Bassanio in a tailspin, but finally he agrees to hand over the ring. Later, when again dressed as herself, she asks where the ring is and causes all sorts of trouble over his giving it away. Again, just as with Shylock earlier, she is involved in entrapment. The point here, I think, is that creating absolute rules, creating unquestionable laws, is generally a bad idea. And this brings us back to the question of mercy. Laws need to be strict and to admit of no exceptions – but life and justice requires that people should be able to plead mitigation. And when universal laws are applied blindly to specific circumstances all too often they can lead to injustice.

If, ultimately, this is an anti-Semitic play, it isn’t one that I think really could leave anti-Semites feeling terribly comfortable with their beliefs or proud of their racism. Shylock’s motives are anything but worthy, but how he is treated is hardly an example of the best of Christian morality. His enforced conversion is repulsive in the extreme, his entrapment is also repulsive – in fact, there ought to be laws against such behaviour.

[Emily May · Rating 4 out of 5]

So strange that this was ever considered a comedy. I've yet to see a performance of it that has seemed anything but tragic. Such an odd play all around and is - along with the Taming of the Shrew - one that makes you want to ask the old boy what his intentions were. It's criticised by many for being anti-Semitic and yet it offers Shylock the spotlight to make an infamous speech about the unfair treatment of Jews. Strange.

[Asma Albishri · Rating 4 out of 5]

قرأت الرواية و أنا في الصف الثاني متوسط، و أذكر أن أول شيء خطر ببالي بعد أن انهيتها هو: لماذا اختار شكسبير أن تكون الشخصية المحتالة المرابية المتلاعبة الشريرة شخصية يهودية؟

تعلمت وقتها أن اليهود هكذا في نظر العالم أجمع قديما و حديثا، و أن الربا - الذي كان أيضا من صفات التاجر اليهودي - كان فعلاً منبوذاً كما نؤمن نحن تماماً


أعتقد أنني سأعيد قراءتها !

[Anne Blocker · Rating 5 out of 5]

My grandmother knew Shakespeare by heart. Not one play or a few sonnets, but all of it, the body of work. She believed the highest calling was to contribute to the body of human knowledge. She was one of the early professors at The University of Texas.

I knew Shylock and Portia as if they were members of our family when I went with my grandmother at 15 to the open stage at Stratford-on-Avon to see The Merchant of Venice. Growing up on an island in the Gulf of Mexico where every able-bodied person is valued in a storm, I was unable to understand the tone of anti-Semitism. I wrote about that when I next studied the play in college.

In my Forties, our laboratory was conducting research at St. Stephen's School in Austin when the Headmaster called to say I had to come immediately to see the results of a new learning device. The door to the classroom was locked until the bell rang. Seventh grade students streamed into the class and seized the lesson of the day to learn -- Elizabethan vocabulary for The Merchant of Venice. I expected groans and instead, it was like a race. In 15 minutes, they had all learned the lesson to 100% and the teacher turned on a video in process, an exchange of Portia, Antonio and Shylock about the pound of flesh.

When the word forsooth came on, the class, in unison, raised fists into the air and shouted the word. I was startled. Could this be learning?

When the video was turned off, the hands went up enthusiastically. The first question, what are the words we say today that will seem odd three hundred years from now? Cool, tight, talk to the hand seemed to qualify. The next question, what is a pound of flesh and where could you cut it off the body where it would do the most and the least damage? That led to a discussion of emergency medicine, vulnerability of biological systems and triage.

Then, the inevitable, what does it mean to be Jewish and why do they charge interest? If I lent you lunch money today, I wouldn't ask for more than I lent you tomorrow. That would not seem fair. The kids of bankers and Realtors were quick to discuss economic systems, countries where interest was illegal, the first rumors of the success of the Grameen Bank. They were guided in a discussion of the common origin of religions, the children of Abraham who had become Jews, Christians and Muslims.

I asked the teacher, noticing the time, when they were going to discuss the play and Shakespeare. She turned and smiled. This is what we study Shakespeare FOR, she said, to teach students to think and feel and deal with what is important -- poetry, ideas, the human condition. This is just the beginning. These kids will be talking about The Merchant of Venice all their lives. I realized she was right.