As you know the main and central storyline to the play is the bond between Antonio and shylock, where if Antonio does not pay pack the loan of three thousand ducats from Shylock within three months, Shylock is entitled to a pound of Antonio’s flesh which was a personal request of Shylock by the way.
This makes the link with ogres who legendarily feed on human flesh making him seem like a monstrous and terrifying person; something which I believe he is not.
Another point or line in the play that is linked with the ogre comparison is in Act III Scene I when Shylock makes a remark that Antonio “will feed my revenge” which is in my opinion an extension to the grotesque belief of that time that Jews actually ate human flesh.
I would now just like to give you a quote from a book that I have regarding, “The Merchant of Venice” which is, “although fear and, to some extent, sympathy are important considerations in any response to Shylock’s character, it is essential to Shakespeare’s purpose that a comic perspective be maintained. Because Shylock more often strikes us as a figure of fun, our misgivings are not allowed to affect the happy, idealised mood which dominates all the scenes at Belmont. Similarly, comedy helps to prevent any compassion we might have for him obliterating the distinctions made between different attitudes to riches, and the contrast drawn between the currency of love and that of money”
I think that this is an extremely good point and for some reason it leads me to believe that Shakespeare uses Shylock’s character as a kind of buffer, so to speak. What I mean is he is there to make sure we don’t have too strong of a feeling on a certain point or opinion.
Basically we understand the book the way Shakespeare intended it and that the only view that is right is his (Shakespeare). This is such an inspirational and influential method of writing that I think all modern writers should try to emulate.
Throughout the play Shakespeare makes many comic references to the popular prejudices of his time; these references were just enough to prevent Shylock becoming purely formidable and fearsome to the Shakespearean audience, yet a lot more is needed to fulfil or satisfy today’s audiences.
In today’s world, such racially degrading jokes would cause outrage.
Personally, I believe that we are not witnessing outright racial degradation but Shylock himself is coming under fire. I say this because even when Shylock is having a conversation with one of his own people his speech and mannerisms seem ridiculous which demonstrates that we are laughing at an “individual” not an individual race. I believe this because Tubal (also a Jew), who is quite a minor character in the play escapes relatively unscathed from this conversation.
An example of these comical mishaps was when Solanio reports of Shylock’s reaction to his plight. As his mind is so torn between lamenting the loss of his money and the loss of his daughter he gets his views very comically confused,
“My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter!
Fled with a Christian! O my Christian ducats!
Personally, I believe that this account is extremely funny and typical of Shylock’s character yet it doesn’t criticise Shylock because as we know Solanio would never miss an opportunity to condemn the Jew and partially because in his turmoil he mentioned his daughter before the money showing his humane side.
Yet no sooner do we read this, Shakespeare twists the story with a few opinions from Shylock which turn the reader back against him.
It seems to me that Shakespeare personally wanted the character to be liked because I believe that Shakespeare made Shylock a self portrait but he could not go against all the beliefs of his time so he stuck with popular opinion. Something which suggested this to me were the various anti-climaxes in Shylock’s character because just when we were just starting to relate to him, he says a line which quite literally brings him back to square one.
At various times during the play, one notice's that Shylock has quite plainly no sense of humour and therefore it seemed rather obvious that Shylock was not joking when he suggested the bond but was as serious as anyone I have ever seen.
This was extremely clever on Shylock’s part as it lured Antonio into a false sense of security and made Antonio instantly accept the bond. The audience realised that this was an outright lie from Shylock as we witnessed earlier in the play that Shylock would relish in the opportunity to “feed fat the ancient grudge” he has for Antonio.
Even Basannio is suspicious when Shylock makes this suggestion as he says, “I like not fair terms, and a villains mind.” This suggests that Shylock is at his most sinister when he is pretending to be kind.
I believe that Antonio was very foolish in accepting this bond because if Shylock was not intending to gain any interest on this bond he is bound to enforce the terms of the bond as revenge on not only Antonio but the entire Christian race.
I will now go on to comment on one of the rare moments in the play where we see a partly human side to side to Shylock. This is the speech which he makes claiming that Antonio has thwarted for one simple reason that he was a Jew. Shylock might actually have some justification in this statement as we have no evidence that Antonio is any less anti-Semitic than the rest of his fellow Venetians. He then points out that he is as much a human as any other man.
Yet many critics and commentators on the play believe that this is not a plea for equality but to justify his imminent revenge.
In conclusion, throughout this play we discover Shylock has as many faces and personas as a Mexican wrestler. We have quite literally seen the good, the bad and the ugly which makes this character so powerful and the focal point of the play.
