JADE OLIVER

How does Shakespeare challenge his audience to consider the tensions within the human

experience?

The complexities and contextual challenges within William Shakespeare’s 16th century tragicomedy,

The Merchant of Venice are explored through a lens of emerging Renaissance individualism within a

shifting socio-economic paradigm, and resulting Judeo-Christian tensions. Shakespeare’s

representation of individual and collective tensions between minority and majority groups therefore

reveal the inconsistencies, anomalies, and paradoxes within the flawed nature of characters within

the play. Such textual challenges immerse the readers within allegorical representations that reveal

the hypocritical and complex nature of the human psyche, prevailing relevance to a modern

audience in which they can reflect upon both the individual and collective human experiences of

suppression, vulnerability, and religious and gendered marginalization.

The dramatic comedy elucidates the anxieties and tensions during a shifting economic

paradigm, revealing how conflicting religious and business practices exacerbated the inherent

xenophobia within a fluctuating social milieu. The consistent anti-semitic references and vilification

of the Jewish usurer, Shylock, establishes the blatant prejudice used against minorities, echoing the

ancient blood libels and scapegoating of Jews for the death of Christ. This is most evident in the

repeated use of dehumanizing animalistic terms used by the Christian characters towards Shylock,

referring to him as an “inhuman wretch,” and a “cut throat dog.” Shakespeare’s utilization of

suppressive epithet, in conjunction with Shylock’s first dialogue, “three thousand ducats,” therefore

reinforces the villainous Jewish stereotype that permeated the Jacobean milieu. However, the play

also challenges the audience to consider the true motivations and anomalies within human

behaviours, as their hatred for Shylock stems from his business practices, which was ultimately
forced upon the Jewish population by Christian decree. This is exemplified in his Act three speech, in

which he emotionally appeals to the commonalities of human nature, rhetorically stating through an

accumulation of conditional sentences that as humans “if you prick us do we not bleed,” and “if you

wrong us, shall we not revenge,” exhibiting empathy of its antagonists’ motives in a way that only

Shakespeare can muster. By appealing to their sense of humanity, that he is a man just as them

trying to financially succeed, there is an arousal of empathy from the audience as his dignity and

semitic discrimination is recognised. The speech echoes Renaissance humanist ideals by preaching

philosophy defining all humans as equal exceptional beings, which may be why he is considered such

a threat, as his capitalist ideals and business practices threaten the traditional Christian power, and

thus the conflict between the two groups exacerbate. Through this compelling speech and the

characterisation of Shylock, Shakespeare encapsulates the paradoxical nature of humans within the

Venetian context, emphasizing flawed aspects of humanity.

Shakespeare accentuates the deceitful nature of humanity and the inherent conflicts

between masculinity and femininity through the recurring concept of verisimilitude,

encapsulating the comedic element of the genre. Within the context of a conservative and

patriarchal Elizabethan zeitgeist, women were traditionally considered metaphorical possessives of

their male dominators. While Portia remained cautiously submissive within her domestic and

emotional sphere lacking self-determination as she “may neither choose whom i would nor refuse

whom i dislike,” she utilizes verisimilitude to reverse the stereotypical Venetian gendered statuses

along the way. The complexity of Portia’s characterisation is evident in her articulate, and scathing

deconstruction of each contested suitor during the casket choosing, taking pleasure in questioning

their masculinity, commenting on the French lord; “God made him, and therefore let him pass for a

man.” Her powerful femininity and consistent highly financial language of “gross,” “profit,” and
“sum,” consistently infiltrates the play revealing just how comfortable she is within the masculine,

financially responsible world, and her implicit reluctance to leave the world she has created for

herself. Although the true epitome of her emergence as a master manipulator is evident in which

Portia disguises herself as “the learned doctor,” to win the legal conflict, revealing how the trope of

disguise supports the utilization of verisimilitude in the construction of her characterisation, as well

as highlighting the power and intelligence of women, although the patriarchal Venetian social sphere

meant this unfortunately had to be done in a passive way. Ostensibly motivated to exercise her

feminine power to manipulate the traditional masculine protocols reveals the progression and

paradoxes within Shakespeare’s work.

The recurrent motif of bonds reveals the inherent structure of human relationships, which is

ultimately transactional, in which individuals seek to benefit from one another. Shylock’s

antagonistic motivations are revealed whilst creating a bond with Antonio, as he comments that “If

you repay me not, let the forfeit be nominated for an equal pound of your fair flesh.” Although

ultimately, this legal bond is symbolic in that it encompasses Shylock’s deep need for revenge and

reparations in the form of a Christian’s death. Shylock demands for such revenge as he exclaims “I’ll

have my bond,” “I’ll not be made a soft and dull eyed fool” "I will have my bond.” Through the pairing

of anaphora with the urgency within the verb “I will,” Shakespeare further solidifies Shylock as the

perceived Machiavellian villain, whilst also revealing the inconsistent motivations of such legal

bonds, begging the audience to consider Shylock’s human motivations. Conversely, the bond

between Portia and Bassanio though ostensibly represents the marital fidelity between the couple,

the bond, in the form of a ring, allows Portia to further subvert the ingrained gender norms within

Venice, forcing the audience to consider the transactional nature of relationships with the purpose

of individual benefits. While Portia gives Bassanio the ring as a token of her love and he wilfully loses

it, she distinctly warns him that “with which when you part from, lose, or give away, let it presage
the ruin of your love.” Using the bond to her advantage, Portia tames her husband while wielding her

power, putting Bassanio in a reversed submissive position within the relationship, and thus offering

a matriarchal challenge to Bassanio’s patriarchal authority. Through the bonds of Bassanio and

Portia, and Antonio and Shylock, Shakespeare allows the audience to interpret the inherent

challenges the bonds manifest, revealing the religious fuelled vengeance, as well as manipulative

motivations of the humans authorizing the bonds with the play.

Through Shakespeare’s efficacious storytelling within MOV, the contextual challenges within the

play and inherent conflicts between the characters invites the audience to critically consider the

motivations behind them, revealing the inconsistencies within human nature.