Merchant of Venice: A Diapason of Moral Shenanigans

Written in the late sixteenth century, Merchant of Venice is a play that has subterfuge at its core. The play at its very onset subtly cautions us
against easy readings through a speech by its professed protagonist: “In sooth, I know not why I am so sad… What stuff ’tis made of… I am to learn… I have much ado to know myself.” The dubiousness of this introspection in a private – not personal – space forces the audience and the readers of the play to assess the play as performative where the performance by the actors is a cognate between the seeming and the lived experience. The play resists bracketing as an aesthetic experience or as a sheer denouement on the contemporary social scene. The truth that the play seeks to explore explodes since the speaker of these opening lines, Antonio, is described as a two headed Janus. This is clearly double speak. In common parlance “Janus faced” insinuates deceitfulness. In Latin the name translates as “to go”.1 It is pertinent that Janus was a Roman god of merchandise and trade as also a god of new beginnings and transitions. Interestingly, this deity’s blessings were propitiated by all, irrespective of their personal religious affiliations. In times of war the doors to his temple were left ajar while during times of peace they were closed. Antonio is his age’s representative merchant who comes from the respectable Christian echelons. Merchants bring fortune to their countries. Antonio’s economic worth is overcast by his closed expression which cues us to his precarious creditworthiness which we gradually see does not decrease his clout. The garrulous empathy of his companions who have near identical names Salanio and Salarino – trips us through social satire. Sala was an Italian surname. The suffix ario refers to a profession which is negated by an ‘n’, while nio suggests pseudo novelty and a negation. Cleverly our Bard has a jab at the Italian mercantile class.
The play, Merchant of Venice has its diehard plaudits who read the play as a romantic dark comedy where darkness does not overwhelm the overall romantic temper of the play. However, close readings clearly strip the play off of its rosy hue – we are gradually led into a lair of deceit where the merchant comes across as a man whose morality is ambiguous and alters contextually. Sixteenth century Europe was celebrated as an age agog with discoveries of Hellenic faith and foreign cultures where forced cultural and religious internment was a tabooed subject – a blind spot consistently elided over; it is uncanny that we do not come across mainstream works that discuss this mass extermination and silencing of religious groups and races that held contrary beliefs and practises. Through Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare hoists the petard with his own ammunition. In his creative oeuvre, the Bard undermines the impulse to homogenize. Each of his play is complicated by a character from the margins who complicates the plot and shifts the centre. Interestingly here this is so subtly and so seamlessly achieved that the play becomes a covert transcript of the wrongs that Europe perpetrated. Lordships as prerogative to colonise and to farm colonies through trade with the sole intention of profiteering was the catchall of the sixteenth century bankers. Banks dotted the hinterland of Europe where money was invested and exchanged hands. Italy emerged as the financial centre in the late sixteenth century. Despite a blanket ban by all religions to charge interest on loans to fellow men, traders across Europe found ways to wriggle through – they started issuing to and taking interest from people who did not belong to their religious domination. Antonio’s person is a self-justifying flashpoint for hegemonic aggrandizement: this mainstream merchant class is his passport to clemency. When we meet him and till the time he escapes possible death, we find him a willing passive toy in destiny’s hands. Antonio refers to his merchandise as argosies which tunes us to his racial confidence. He feels, perhaps superior to Jason who voyaged on the sea with his fellow-mariners while he commanders from home. Paradoxically where Argos had pioneering adventurers whom no obstacle could stall, Antonio’s ship with its merchandise stalls in shallows.
A chiaroscuro of shifting sensibility laces the play. One is stunned by the wide ranging dialectic that shapes the play. Antonio’s bosom friend, Bassanio is a wastrel who leeches Antonio to further his extravagance. Both friends have hopes without substance in common. Where Antonio relies on the unpredictable, Bassanio places his bet on a rich heiress, Portia, whose “sunny locks” seem to him like the “golden fleece…” It is apt that Bassanio is named Bassanio – he is base, basic and fundamental. The music of his life is earthy. In all probability, Bassanio is Jason inverted: Jason obtains the golden fleece with exceptional courage, Bassanio has nothing to recommend him but his good looks. Apparently, what Portia has to recommend her is her shrewd wit and sly intrepidity. She is a befitting foil to Antonio. Antonio is generous to a fault while Portia is sly to the teeth. A world of moral shenanigans is reaffirmed. Portia’s worth lies in her ability to safeguard her personal interest and the interest of her kin. Describing her residence in Belmont, Bassanio tells us that “the wide world” is not “ignorant of her worth, For the four winds blow in from every coast”. Portia’s home is palatial and the architecture is Palladian. In the Palladian architectural style (named after Paladin) popular during the Renaissance special HYPERLINK “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa” \o “Villa” villas were designed with a “ HYPERLINK “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loggia” \o “Loggia” loggia” that “were recessed portico… with pierced walls… open to the elements”. These palatial villas could only be afforded by the rich. Portia herself tells us a little later that she is a rich heiress bound by her father’s wisdom and will to choose a life partner who meets exacting standards. The social trajectory of the play has actors who are born privileged. This spectrum is kaleidoscopic for what meets the eye and what is are never in tandem. The theme of the two headed Janus runs through the play’s matrix. As such, Portia who is described by Bassanio as virtuous infamously slanders the character of her suitors. Her name is a play on Portunus, a Roman god of keys, doors and livestock, as also ports and harbours, represented like Janus with two heads facing in opposite directions. Portia’s name is also a throwback to Poricus – the powerful family of Roman statesmen – Cato senior and his son. Poricus incidentally means pig. Portia does not see beyond the obvious which explains her fascination with a playboy like Bassanio whom she describes as a scholar and soldier, descriptors that just don’t begin to even describe him. Her foresight is calculated. She has in her the littleness of her age which comes across as a punch out of the blue when she dislikes the Prince of Morocco for his swarthy complexion. She is so judgemental that her racial prejudice overrides every other consideration. She confesses, “…if he have the condition of a saint and the complexion of a devil, I had rather he should shrive me than wive me”. It is a palpable tragedy of sorts when appearances are reduced to a mirage. The first to be axed by this cultural dubiousness is the Prince of Morocco who cannot imagine a world where the truth and the seeming are split. Portia’s welcoming veneer to her suitors veils her malevolence towards them. We are almost relieved when the prince chooses the gold casket and leaves disappointed even if without any hope of future amore. Instead of true romance between Bassanio and Portia, we have a wheeler dealer handshake. While Bassanio tries his luck at guessing the right casket to woo Portia, Portia plays suggestive music in the background which provides clues to Bassanio. Portia compares Bassanio to Heracles which is in perfect sync with the play’s ambiguous trajectory. Bassanio shares good looks with the Greek hero, and this is all. Heracles was a hero who was known for his valour, heroism and sacrificing nature. Also, when Portia goes on to compare herself to Hesione we cannot but question her subconscious –for Hesione did not marry Heracles. Does Portia look out for Bassanio because her intentions have a slant? And the rest is history. The two marry.
It is in the spirit of the play that Bassanio comes to his “lady richly left” not through personal effort but by emotionally blackmailing his friend, Antonio. Antonio the proverbial rich man, is a man whose argosies are in peril. Unable to finance Portia’s soldier, he borrows from Shylock, a Jew. In Shylock, we are introduced to an idiosyncratic individual whose tongue is caustic and who has an acerbic humour. He is the only character on the play who is not glib. This man who comes across as nasty and unsavoury speaks lines which incriminate an entire race and its double standards. Where all other characters ascend the social ladder or assever their ranks, Shylock is travestied, humiliated and finally publicly disgraced. One needs to understand the social political make up of Renaissance Italy to grasp Shylock’s angst and the reason behind his heart wrenching speeches. Jews had settled in Europe escaping persecution in the aftermath of the ‘Fall of Constantinople’ in 1453. They were seen as a threat by the mainstream European community. Jews were increasingly discriminated against and debarred from traditional jobs, and from living freely in the cities. They were persecuted or exiled from their adopted cities. With the thriving of European maritime trade, money was constantly required. The Jews had keen economic sense. They were willing to loan money which was looked down upon as usury by the Jews and the Christians alike. Both the races found it mutually convenient to target the other. As such charging interest on loans to the Christians was not considered sinful by the Jews. For their part the Christians minimally tolerated the Jews and allowed them to stay on their land in segregated colonies where living conditions were deplorable and crime thrived. The law of the land decreed that Jews could not harm Christians while the Christians enjoyed complete impunity by law irrespective of the degree of their crimes against Jews. The reason behind Shylock’s absolute disgust for and rant against Antonio lies here:
“Cursed be my tribe If I forgive him!”
Antonio remains scurrilous towards Shylock even though he needs Shylock’s indulgence. He addresses him derogatorily as a “devil” and “evil”. Anti-Jewish laws like prohibition against owning land and building a HYPERLINK “http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/shul.html” synagogue were enacted in 1420s. In 1516, the doges, Venice’s ruling council permitted the Jews to reside in Venice albeit confined to the Ghetto Nuova, a small, dirty island which became the world’s first ghetto. Jews were only allowed to leave during the day mandatorily wearing distinguishing clothing, such as a yellow scarf. They were locked inside the ghetto during the night. Detailed banking laws kept the interest rates they could charge low at five percent which made life difficult for many of the poor pawnbrokers and moneylenders. Talmud, the sacred religious text of the Jews was burned in 1553. Hebrew books were not allowed to be printed for the next thirteen years. However, the Jews were able to hold their own. Christians came to the ghetto for banking. The 17th century was the period of the ghetto’s golden age when Jewish commerce and scholarship flourished. Jews controlled much of Venice’s foreign trade by the mid-1600s. It is ironical that a rich Shylock is unable to retain his servant Lancelot’s allegiance as freedom proves more seductive “To leave a rich Jew’s service” and serve “so poor a gentleman” as Bassanio. The era remains a quicksand of morality where tyranny, persecution and deprivation intersect and remain in precarious balance. Despite reasons of rabid lawlessness behind Shylock’s stinginess and over-guardedness, it cannot be denied that he is a persecutor and unjustifiably uncatholic towards his dependants because of which his daughter leaves him. Merchant of Venice is an ethical palimpsest where people at large emerge unscrupulous when they have an upper hand while the ones in power are near-impossible to rattle and unsettle. Shylock gets hysterical on seeing Antonio. It is a moment of reckoning when Shylock rants rabidly at Shylock. He is a victim of cultural hegemonising for what stops him from being respectable is his cultural antecedents, not his want of business acumen. It is sinister shenanigans that instinctively goads Shylock to ask Antonio to mortgage his flesh as assurance against his loan: “ to be cut off and taken In what part of your body pleaseth me”. It is around this sinisterous and bloody deal that the play’s romance revolves. The Merchants are from Venice and the play posits an integral question of the merchant’s identity – who is the agent of the play’s plot – one who assumes a prerogative or one who earns it.
Once the sweethearts, Bassanio and Portia wed, Grating declares “We are the Jasons, we have won the fleece” and makes the audience laugh for Bassanio is least Jason like. Bassanio comes across as self-centred for even after he wins Portia’s hand he does not enquire after his friend. He is handed a letter from Antonio after which he returns to Venice. Portia true to her mettle acts shrewdly and with aplomb. She claims that in her husband’s absence she would retire to a monastery “To live in prayer and contemplation… Until her lord’s return” and immediately goes to Venice where she play acts as a young male lawyer. Her actions speak loud – they seamlessly reiterate the play’s shenanigans of schismatic morality – the claimed and the real. This chimera is accelerated and increasingly compounded through Portia’s playful deceit and intelligent verbal harangue in the court where Shylock is bent on butchering Antonio. We are stunned when Shylock envisions the disguised Portia as Daniel – the wise Jewish prophet. Portia plays to win – in Merchant of Venice the performative not the substance matters. Shylock loses the bargain for in the contemporary Renaissance European cultural amphitheatre losers are vanquished because their worth remains immaterial vis a vis their birth. The play ends on a happy utopian note where the schreni of a ghettoised culture rings through, screaming silently.