In Invention of the Human, Harold Bloom illustrates how grossly implausible it would have been for Shylock to convert to Christianity. "No one in The Merchant of Venice is what he or she seems to be—not Portia, Antonio, Bassanio, or Jessica—and can Shakespeare allow only Shylock to maintain a consistent stance? Who in this comedy can have his or her bond?" If anyone could have kept his bond, I would have bet on Antonio or Shylock.
As Bloom points out, the play's inhabitants are so frivolous that they appear insubstantial beside our two main characters. Portia has more wit than the rest, more colorful plumage, but certainly she does not have stronger principles. Why did she save Antonio? For the fun of it. Listen to her: "I'll hold thee any wager, / When we are both accoutred like young men, I'll prove the prettier fellow of the two...and speak of frays / Like a fine bragging youth, and tell quaint lies, How honourable ladies sought my love, / Which I denying, they fell sick and died". Her intervention made Bassanio happy, but that certainly isn't her primary objective. She loves showing that she's cleverer than everyone else. That's why she plays the ring trick on Bassanio: there's no good choice for him, and either way she can rejoice in her dominance. These characters belong in a comedy where nothing's really at stake. (At least, I hope they do. They're less unsettling that way.)
Antonio, on the other hand, would have happily died for Bassanio. Shylock may have allowed anger to corrupt him into a murderer, but that anger springs from the abuse he's suffered as a Jew. (Well, Shakespeare's caricature of one, anyway.) Both of them define themselves by their devotion to an external cause. Both characters warp their causes with the hatred that they bear towards one another. Antonio approaches Shylock to borrow money for Bassanio, but continues to insult Shylock while asking for help. Shylock's justified resentment for Antonio festers into unreasoning, murderous rage [1]. Their devotion, combined with their hatred, lend structural integrity to their characters.
Then why do they lose their anchors? Antonio loses Bassanio. Shylock loses his identity as a moneylender and as a Jew. They are "free" to rejoin Venetian society as two more drifters in the endless sea. It's easy to read this as a veiled criticism of the insipid, carelessly cruel Venice that erodes even the strongest commitments. Antonio's loyalty proves no match for Portia's gaiety and wealth. Shylock becomes a Christian. We hear similar criticisms from Hamlet: "'Tis an unweeded garden, / That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature / Possess it merely." Gertrude weeps with one eye and laughs with the other. Venice extols mercy in one breath and strips Shylock of his property, livelihood, and religion in the next.
But what exactly does Shakespeare criticize? Hypocrisy? Hedonism? Both traits manifest themselves in Falstaff, whom Shakespeare plainly dotes on. If he's not criticizing Portia's group at all, then why provide Antonio and Shylock as such clear contrasts? Anyone can see that the latter two have more substance to them. I'm not sure. Maybe, unlike the Venetians, Falstaff doesn't substantially hurt anyone. Anyone of importance, that is. I remember that scene where he takes bribes to conscript the starving and sickly people for cannon fodder. I never liked Falstaff myself.
It would be more convincing to argue that Falstaff is not a true hypocrite. He tells lies, grossly exaggerating his valor and prowess, but that's simply the way he speaks. He doesn't seriously try to conceal his cowardice and gluttony. He certainly never sheds his skin as Hal does, casting off his unsavory aspects at his convenience. But, I would argue, Falstaff absolutely would if he could. He simply isn't such a capable actor. If he could have pretended pious wisdom and so coaxed a dukedom from Hal, with all the capons that he could eat, Falstaff would have learned his rosary fifty times over. The thought never occurs to him. Like a wild fox, Falstaff does not care to live if he can't live on his own terms.
Is this integrity? If it is, it's weaker than Shylock's. Falstaff never chose to be this way. This is his nature. He takes the primrose path of dalliance. Shylock, on the other hand, actively chooses to suffer for decades rather than convert. He still loses everything. Though Shylock is the antagonist. I believe that Shakespeare meant for his conversion to be a tragedy. Venician banality can digest even evil, in the end. Good and evil alike, Shylock's heresy and Antonio's love, become meaningless.
[1] I would actually argue that Shylock's desire to murder Antonio is entirely justified. Shylock had no ability to retaliate against Antonio for his mistreatment, nor even an equal legal standing with him. What would three thousand ducats change? Would Antonio have left him alone after that? I doubt it. But Shylock refuses to explain his own motivations, so we can only treat them as "unknown".
As Bloom points out, the play's inhabitants are so frivolous that they appear insubstantial beside our two main characters. Portia has more wit than the rest, more colorful plumage, but certainly she does not have stronger principles. Why did she save Antonio? For the fun of it. Listen to her: "I'll hold thee any wager, / When we are both accoutred like young men, I'll prove the prettier fellow of the two...and speak of frays / Like a fine bragging youth, and tell quaint lies, How honourable ladies sought my love, / Which I denying, they fell sick and died". Her intervention made Bassanio happy, but that certainly isn't her primary objective. She loves showing that she's cleverer than everyone else. That's why she plays the ring trick on Bassanio: there's no good choice for him, and either way she can rejoice in her dominance. These characters belong in a comedy where nothing's really at stake. (At least, I hope they do. They're less unsettling that way.)
Antonio, on the other hand, would have happily died for Bassanio. Shylock may have allowed anger to corrupt him into a murderer, but that anger springs from the abuse he's suffered as a Jew. (Well, Shakespeare's caricature of one, anyway.) Both of them define themselves by their devotion to an external cause. Both characters warp their causes with the hatred that they bear towards one another. Antonio approaches Shylock to borrow money for Bassanio, but continues to insult Shylock while asking for help. Shylock's justified resentment for Antonio festers into unreasoning, murderous rage [1]. Their devotion, combined with their hatred, lend structural integrity to their characters.
Then why do they lose their anchors? Antonio loses Bassanio. Shylock loses his identity as a moneylender and as a Jew. They are "free" to rejoin Venetian society as two more drifters in the endless sea. It's easy to read this as a veiled criticism of the insipid, carelessly cruel Venice that erodes even the strongest commitments. Antonio's loyalty proves no match for Portia's gaiety and wealth. Shylock becomes a Christian. We hear similar criticisms from Hamlet: "'Tis an unweeded garden, / That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature / Possess it merely." Gertrude weeps with one eye and laughs with the other. Venice extols mercy in one breath and strips Shylock of his property, livelihood, and religion in the next.
But what exactly does Shakespeare criticize? Hypocrisy? Hedonism? Both traits manifest themselves in Falstaff, whom Shakespeare plainly dotes on. If he's not criticizing Portia's group at all, then why provide Antonio and Shylock as such clear contrasts? Anyone can see that the latter two have more substance to them. I'm not sure. Maybe, unlike the Venetians, Falstaff doesn't substantially hurt anyone. Anyone of importance, that is. I remember that scene where he takes bribes to conscript the starving and sickly people for cannon fodder. I never liked Falstaff myself.
It would be more convincing to argue that Falstaff is not a true hypocrite. He tells lies, grossly exaggerating his valor and prowess, but that's simply the way he speaks. He doesn't seriously try to conceal his cowardice and gluttony. He certainly never sheds his skin as Hal does, casting off his unsavory aspects at his convenience. But, I would argue, Falstaff absolutely would if he could. He simply isn't such a capable actor. If he could have pretended pious wisdom and so coaxed a dukedom from Hal, with all the capons that he could eat, Falstaff would have learned his rosary fifty times over. The thought never occurs to him. Like a wild fox, Falstaff does not care to live if he can't live on his own terms.
Is this integrity? If it is, it's weaker than Shylock's. Falstaff never chose to be this way. This is his nature. He takes the primrose path of dalliance. Shylock, on the other hand, actively chooses to suffer for decades rather than convert. He still loses everything. Though Shylock is the antagonist. I believe that Shakespeare meant for his conversion to be a tragedy. Venician banality can digest even evil, in the end. Good and evil alike, Shylock's heresy and Antonio's love, become meaningless.
[1] I would actually argue that Shylock's desire to murder Antonio is entirely justified. Shylock had no ability to retaliate against Antonio for his mistreatment, nor even an equal legal standing with him. What would three thousand ducats change? Would Antonio have left him alone after that? I doubt it. But Shylock refuses to explain his own motivations, so we can only treat them as "unknown".
Comments
Post a Comment