Shakespeare in the invisible city. On reading The Merchant of Venice.
Venice has always been the setting for the most unsettling stories in literature. Like any of the great cities, it becomes another character in the novel, sometimes the subject of a character’s longing such as Calvino’s Invisible Cities, a place of malicious intentions plotting the downfall of the protagonists, such as Aschenbach in Death in Venice. But in the Merchant of Venice, the city features its commerce, not so much its enigmatic canals and unsettling atmosphere.
In Shakespearean times, Venice was also a centre of culture, which comes naturally after its commercial prowess. The Italian dukes, merchants, money-lenders from all over would find home in the drowned city, as in the case of our man Antonio and his adversary, Shylock the Jew. I suppose during these times laws were also loose and barely enforced, contracts notwithstanding, merchants were able to make fortunes overnight and lose all of it by the minute.
Venice as a setting for what is a comedy, quasi-tragedy was the perfect candidate for this drama. Venice, being the crockpot of cultures, is a place where said cultures clash, where different psychologies and prejudices come to a boil, as we see in the ethical and legal battle between Antonio and Shylock. And this friction between the two is compelling to no end, and it just might put it as one of my favourite plays by the bard.
The ships that never came, and the debt to be paid
Ever put your house up for a second mortgage so your best mate can impress his lady friend? Nah, me neither. It sounds like a pretty fucking dumb thing to do if you ask me, but you and me are probably not made of the same stuff like Antonio, who was willing to borrow money from Shylock (a man he despises for being Jewish) so that Bassanio can become a gentleman and pursue Portia, the lady of Belmont.
In order to secure the loan, Antonio was willing to give up a pound of flesh just in case he was not able to make the payment in time. Antonio, certain that his ships would arrive at port to bring him tremendous riches, agreed. Portia, being an unwedded orphan was placed under strict conditions by her deceased father on who to marry. The candidates must choose between three boxes of gold, silver or gold and solve a riddle, where the correct casket would have the picture of the maiden, and the lucky man would be able to take her hand.
A couple of princes failed before Bassanio, who Portia loved anyway, chose the right casket. His borrowed wealth was accumulated with Portia’s own, so that he was able to pay his friend’s debt and then some. But it was a bit late, and Shylock wants his pound of Antonio’s hot Italian flesh. It was up between the two then to battle it out in the Venetian courts: Antonio defending the sanctity of his body, Shylock ruthlessly pursuing the original deal.
The tragicomedy of Shylock
The prejudices against Shylock is the prejudice that we’ve seen before in literature: Isaac of York in Ivanhoe, Mr Riah in Our Mutual Friend and who can forget our Ulysses, Leopold Bloom? The difference between these characters and Shylock is that these men were portrayed by their authors in a sympathetic light, while at first glance, the blood-hungry Shylock is no better than the scheming Iago.
The debate is ongoing on why Shylock wanted the pound of flesh as opposed to an exorbitant interest rate for the failure of timely payment. Antonio has insulted Shylock in the past, and makes no secret that he hates Shylock’s kind with a vengeance. This insult has not left Shylock’s memory and we can speculate that Shylock plots for the downfall of Antonio, that he wants this man to die. But a pound of flesh perhaps will not kill as you could cut a part of your limb for a fair portion of this weight.
Did Shylock then take pleasure on Antonio’s plight, to shadow his thoughts that his flesh is not his, but his own mortal enemy’s? We can also argue that Shylock was hard done by, that whatever was at stake was not his fault for the one providing the terms. But we will explore this question of justice in a while. In this way, perhaps we can view Shylock as the antihero, trying to balance the society that has long since despised him and stigmatised him.
In the end, it is an ambiguous question which will always be open to speculation. Is it a mere decision by the playwright to create dramatic effect, or is there something more deeply human in Shylock to act out of vengeance? Why did Medea kill her children? Whatever the reason might be, I find Shylock’s choice humanly possible.
The questionable fabric of Venetian society
The Merchant of Venice is an exploration of men’s vitriol, but also the relationship between ethics and law. It is an eternal question which Plato had asked a millennia before — what is justice? Who is justice for? For Plato, justice is the essential fabric for the bond of society. It is the bind between the individual and others around him. By this definition, it is thus difficult putting it as a mere breach of transaction.
But can we blame Shylock for Antonio’s failing? It was after all, Antonio’s gamble on his own flesh, a decision that was offered and taken. Would justice have been better served if Antonio had sacrificed his flesh instead of playing Shylock like a fool and drawing out the Uno reverse card, usurping Shylock’s own wealth, so that Shylock just abruptly disappears after the fourth act? Wow, I’ve been asking a lot of questions, but I guess that’s what good plays do.
But what was the legitimacy of the Venetian courts? Shylock was already going to his own funeral when he tried to argue his case in front of the Venetian judges, who were already sympathetic to Antonio’s plight to begin with. Shylock was up against the society that had put him down since the beginning of time, under the mercy of their systems and their decision-making. Can we label this as courage, or had Shylock resorted to these means for a lack of a better choice?
In the light of society, the agreement between Shylock and Antonio has no value. It is a breach of the law to prevent any bodily harm, thus putting Shylock in the wrong to begin with. In the light of a bond between men signing their own death warrant, Antonio is in the wrong regardless of what society defines as “legal”. Does breaking this deal make Antonio less than a man? Yeah, I think so. But we’ve made mistakes like this. The best of us have broken promises, perhaps not to the same stake as Antonio, but we’re not any better. Laughing at Antonio’s misfortune is sneering at our own fallibility. This is an old Shakespearean trick that all of us fall for.
From the outside, looking in
In no other play has the theme of appearances been aptly explored. Portia’s suitors had to guess from the appearance of gold, silver and lead which best represented Portia. The lead which hinted, “Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath” is the sacrifice the suitor must make for the joys of domestic life. Though I think the interpretation of gold and silver are also ambiguous, as the previous two suitors have failed to choose right casket, the utility and humility of lead were more appropriate.
There are numerous examples of outward appearances having a superficial nature. The Prince of Morocco claimed that his dark skinned is incongruous to his blood (Does that mean that he has a white personality?). The court and the main characters were fooled by Portia who disguised herself as a man to save Antonio. Bassanio’s borrowed money made him a practical real gentleman, who was then able to vie for Portia’s hand.
And perhaps the grandest illusion here is the play itself, on the surface a tale of an evil man’s plan to pursue another man’s flesh by physical harm, but on the other side of the coin, it is a tale of the tyranny of the majority, and the failure of our innate prejudices. Shylock is the tragic hero because he is the victim of society’s prejudices. What ends as a comedy with the typical marriage trope is a tragedy of the society that cannot break its own way of thinking, and propagating it continuously.
Has the Bard managed to fool us again?
