FREE ESSAY ON MERCHANT OF VENICE

MERCHANT OF VENICE

The Merchant of Venice is a controversial play among experts of Shakespeare. This play has
been argued by some to be a comedy. This is because there is a lot of comic relief and
the story has a happy ending. Others consider the play to be a tragedy because of
Shylock's character. He is very much like a character of a tragedy as in Phaedra. Still
other experts use the term "tragicomedy". Personally I think that the last definition is
the best one to describe this play. 
There are several factors that contribute to the classification of a play as a tragedy or
as a comedy. A tragedy has four main elements according to current definitions. The first
element is the tragic hero. In The Merchant of Venice Shylock is the only character that
can be argued to be such a person. He is involved in most of the action and is the source
of the major conflict. If he was not present the play would have no conflict and would
not make a very good story. Shylock can also be considered the tragic hero because he has
a tragic flaw. This is his obsession that is very evident throughout the play. His
material wealth consumes his thoughts day and night. He may be a Jewish man but I think
that the god he worships the most is known as gold. One instance where it is apparent
that he only cares about his possessions was when Jessica ran away. He was ranting, "O,
my ducats! O, my daughter! Fled with a Christian! O, my Christian ducats" (2.8.15-16). He
simply includ!
ed his daughter in the middle as though she were one of his possessions. 
Another part of a tragedy is that the tragic hero must be humbled or humiliated. Shylock
experienced both of these. He was humiliated when Portia, disguised as a man, used his
own comments and contract against him. Any person that was at first praising someone for
being smart and virtuous must feel really dumb when that person is not really on their
side like they seemed to be at first.
We have not done much in class with what a comedy is but I think that I have a decent
general knowledge of what one is. The first element that I know of is the comic relief.
In The Merchant of Venice there is an abundance of such comic relief. One example was
when Portia and Nerissa got the rings from their husbands to be while they were in
Venice. After they obtained them they teased the two with threats and stories involving a
lot of sexual humor. A specific example of the sexual humor was when Gratiano said,
"Well, do you so. Let me not take him, then! For if I do, I'll mar the young clerk's pen"
(5.1.236-237). The comic relief serves the purpose of relieving some of the immense
tension that builds up in the play. Act five as a whole is a very good example because it
is right after the climax of the play and has what seems to me to be the best comedy of
the entire play.
The second element of a comedy that I know of is that it must have a happy ending. This
is most certainly what happens in our play. Once Antonio was cleared of his bond everyone
got what they wanted. Antonio made Shylock become Christian and Jessica and Lorenzo got a
deed to Shylock's possessions when he died. Most importantly Bassanio and Portia and
Jessica and Gratiano resolved the ring issues with good spirits and mutual
understanding.
From what I have said in the previous paragraphs I have to classify this play as a
"tragicomedy". The Merchant of Venice has all of the elements of comedy that I have
mentioned. Throughout the play there is a tremendous amount of humor. It consists of both
high comedy and a little bit of low comedy too. One example of the low comedy would be at
the beginning when Bassanio and Gratiano are in the pub with Antonio acting silly. They
are only concerned with drinking beer and having fun. An example of the high comedy was
when Portia was criticizing all of her suitors. She mocked each one of them with witty
remarks. My favorite of these remarks was when she replied to Nerissa about liking the
Duke of Saxony's nephew, "Very vilely in the morning, when he is sober, and most vilely
in the afternoon, when he is drunk" (2.1.84-85). This gave us a little hint as to
Portia's wit and guile. This play is also consistent with my statement that a comedy must
have a happy ending. There!
was a good-natured air about the characters in the final scene. They all resolved any
problems that were present so that we would be left with a complete sense of closure.
I have told you why I think that the play is partly a comedy and now to tell you about
the tragic element. A tragedy has a tragic hero which in this case is Shylock. I do not
feel that with a character as tragic as him in the play that we can ignore him. He was
wronged so much in the play that it is hard to remember all of those offenses. First of
all he was always singled out and hated by everyone. Antonio spat on him and kicked him
like a dog. Another example of his tragicness was when Jessica ran away from him. This
upset him greatly because she ran away with a Christian. However, his main concern was
all of the riches that she had stolen from him. He cared more about his possessions than
he did about his daughter. A final way that Shylock was wronged was when Antonio was
released from the bond. If Shylock was a good Christian man there would not have been a
controversy. He probably would have been allowed to take the pound of flesh.
The final reason why this play could be considered a tragedy is because Shylock was
humiliated. This is a necessary part of a tragic hero's character. For all of the reasons
that I have stated in the above paragraphs this play must be considered a "tragicomedy".
It does not fit a single set of criteria. Instead it has many comic elements and a little
of the tragic elements. If Shylock's character was not so involved in the story I would
classify the play as a comedy. Since he does have such a major role I find it impossible
to ignore his tragic qualities.
#6
The Merchant of Venice is a great play and I enjoyed it very much. As we read through the
play I started to notice something that was different about it. At first I was unable to
"put my finger on it". Then it started to become a little clearer. During our discussions
I started to notice that other people's interpretations of the play were different from
mine. I listened to what the other people said and it made sense. Therefore I started to
think that maybe I was at fault and had misinterpreted it. Then the next day it happened
again. I began to wonder if I was doing something wrong. That was when I really started
to think that there was something unique about this play. I did not say anything in class
about my thoughts because they seemed a little weird, even to me. After all, I had never
heard of a play having two different ways of reading it. My suspicions went on for a
couple of weeks and that was when I became extremely happy. Dr. Lipkind came into our
class and t!
alked to us about the play. He was in his usual character, arms flailing and voice
booming, when he told us that this play could be read two completely different ways. I
could finally breathe a sigh of relief. It was really frustrating for me to doubt my own
thoughts. For during the class discussions I was continually second guessing myself and I
did not like this feeling.
After Dr. Lipkind told us this fact he told us that many experts had different opinions
about this. Some said that this double-sided story was pathetic and weak. They thought
that this was simply a case of a writer's indecision and lack of ability. Other experts
thought that this double-sidedness was the plays greatest asset. They disagreed as to how
intelligent Shakespeare was and if he intended to do this on purpose or if it was simply
an accident. I am inclined to agree with the experts that think Shakespeare was a
brilliant writer in his time. He would even be considered one of the very best writers in
history. 
Shakespeare has written countless poems and plays. Not all of them are a representation
of his very best work but that does not matter. To be a great writer, at least in my
mind, a person only has to produce two pieces of literature that are of a high caliber.
Shakespeare did this. One of those great plays was Julius Caesar. I read this play last
year and enjoyed it very much. They way that he put the scenes together was awesome.
Throughout the play he developed the plots and sub-plots while continuing to keep the
play exciting and entertaining. He never let the audience get bored. There are several
other plays that he wrote that were of a very high caliber. He also wrote poems. His
Shakespearean sonnets are very interesting because they always used the same rhyme
scheme. If this man had all this talent I do not think that any person would dispute his
greatness and say that one of his plays was weak. Furthermore, I do not think that anyone
could say that such a great wr!
iter simply wrote a double-sided play on accident. Shakespeare did intentionally write
this play so that it could be read two ways.
As I mentioned earlier I had interpreted many parts of this play differently than many of
my classmates. One example of this was when Bassanio and his friends met Antonio in the
first scene of the play. Most of the others in the class did not think very highly of
them. They thought that they were clowns and almost mocked them. However, I thought that
they were just having a good time. I do not find anything wrong with a few guys getting
drunk and having a good time, so long as they do not injure anybody in the process or
drink while they are riding a horse or operating heavy machinery. 
Another example of how this play can be read two different ways involves Shylock's "merry
bond". During a class discussion with Dr. Lipkind I said that I thought Shylock was
planning revenge from the very beginning. When presented with this point of view much of
the class agreed with me. Dr. Lipkind told us to watch this situation develop and to see
if I was right. As it turns out I was right, and wrong. If the play was read one way
Shylock would be a vicious person plotting Antonio's demise from the beginning. The other
way would be that Shylock did propose the bond in pure innocence and had no notion of
revenge at that point. I now believe that I was a little premature in my assumption. I
think that Shylock thought of revenge after Jessica had run away with a Christian. This
added weight upon his shoulders made him snap. 
In act 3 scene 1 Shylock said, "Let him look to his bond" (44). At this point we can
interpret the Information two ways. Has Shylock been scheming towards Antonio's death all
along? Or is he just realizing that he has a great opportunity for revenge. I prefer to
think that he has just realized his opportunity. If he were a modern person his thoughts
would have sounded something like this, "Wow, I have been wronged by Antonio so much and
my daughter just ran away with a Christian. I just thought of something. I have Antonio
trapped with this bond that we mad in jest. But, a bond is a bond and it does not matter
if he thought it was made in jest. I think I will take my revenge on him when he is
unable to pay. Wow, that is a great idea." The other interpretation would have sounded
something like this, "Finally, I have Antonio where I want him. His ships will not come
in and he will default. Surely the Duke will allow me my award. It is a bond and there is
nothing that he can do!
. I will finally take my long awaited revenge." 
A final example of something that can be read two different ways in this play was when
Portia said that she loved Bassanio. She might have been sincere or she may have been
very sarcastic and cynical. Everything in this play is open to the interpretation of the
reader. Shakespeare has "welded" the lines of this play together so well that it is
extremely hard for a person to pick apart the two different stories. This was definitely
no accident. He did it on purpose and it amazes me. It can not be a weakness. It is too
wonderful, graceful, and intricate not to take heed. One must appreciate this for what it
is, an absolutely stunning and mind boggling piece of work.
#8
The Merchant of Venice has many characters. Some were very important while others were
less important. None of the characters though were insignificant. Even the tiniest
characters were vital. The messengers might have only appeared a couple of times and said
very few words but the messages that they delivered were essential to the play. The play
would have been awkward without these people doing their individual and sometimes only
job. 
Two of the minor characters in this play were Solanio and Salerio. We refer to them as
S+S. A person that has not read this play may wonder why we can call two people by these
two letters that are the same. They would say, "Which S is Solanio and which S is
Salerio?" To our class this would almost be funny, because we know better. It would not
be that person's fault, they are just ignorant. Those of us that have read and studied
this play know that there is no need to distinguish between the two because they are only
stock characters that are identical. They are one-dimensional, we never know anything
about them, and they mainly tell us about the main characters. One example of their
similarity lies in their names. Just look at them, they are very similar. Another thing
is that they usually appear together. I can only recall one scene where on of them
appeared and the other one did not. This was in act three scene two when Salerio
delivered a message to Bassanio from Antonio !
bearing grave news. These two characters also serve the same purpose in the play. They
are like the chorus, they tell about the setting and the mood of the characters. This is
vital information for the audience to have because it allows them to see what Shakespeare
had in mind. If S+S did not help the audience view the play in a particular way the play
may be a little confusing. S+S also develop the main characters and plot through dialog.
This could be seen when S+S were talking to Shylock in act three scene one. During their
conversation two things become clear. One was that Shylock would indeed take a pound of
flesh from Antonio's body. The second was that the general public doubted that Shylock
would do it. Remember, S+S represent the opinions and attitudes of the general public.
The final purpose that these two minor characters serve is in the exposition. They are
essential to this part of the play because they setup the entire act. When Antonio said,
"In sooth, I know n!
ot why I am so sad" (1.1.1) S+S told us why they thought that he was sad. This was when
we learned about Antonio's risky ventures in which all of his money was invested. This
setup the entire money borrowing situation with Shylock which in turn led to the central
plot of the play.
Another minor character in this play was the Duke of Venice. He can be classified as a
minor character because of his little role. His presence was only felt in the courtroom
and even at that he did not affect the play in a major way. As we know minor characters
can serve the purpose of portraying the public's feelings and setup a scene for a major
character. In the courtroom scene the Duke does both of these things. During the trial
Shylock wanted justice, and he wanted it quickly. He pressured the Duke to give him what
he rightfully deserved but the Duke did something. He delayed his decision until he could
hear from the good doctor Bellario. In this single decision he accomplished both of the
tasks that I mentioned earlier in the paragraph. First, since he represents the public's
emotions, it is safe to say that the people of Venice did not want Shylock to get his
pound of flesh and wanted to delay as long as possible. They were all looking for some
way to save Anton!
io. Secondly, he set the scene so that a major character could come in and save the day.
This, of course, was Portia. When she got to town the Duke's character went back into
obscurity. She took over the scene that had been well prepared for her
The final minor character that I am going to talk about is Lancelot Gobbo. He is perhaps
one of the most important minor characters in terms of foreshadowing. He decided that he
was going to leave Shylock's home and told Jessica. When she heard this she did not hold
it against him. She thought that he was doing the right thing. Lancelot's actions got
Jessica to say, "Our house is hell" (2.3.2). This is foreshadowing that Jessica is going
to leave the house also. I think that this foreshadowing is the best in this play and it
creates a tremendous amount of tension and anticipation. I also think that Lancelot is
the most comedic of the minor characters. His comedic scene in which he "played" with his
father lightened the tension in the play just before they got back into the suspenseful
things.
Minor characters are essential to all plays. Some may argue that they do not serve much
of a purpose but that would be an uninformed decision. It is obvious to me that all minor
characters are important. If they were not present a writer would have to devise some
other way of communicating thoughts to the audience which could be awkward and lengthy.
#13
The Merchant of Venice was written by William Shakespeare a very long time ago. Despite
this fact he managed to use many literary devices in an excellent way. Back when he lived
not many people were educated. Only the wealthy upper class was privileged enough to
educate themselves. Shakespeare obviously had enough money to educate himself. However, I
do doubt the quality of his education compared to that of today. Did they teach people
back them as good as we do today? If they did not it would only add to his greatness. It
would mean that he was that much more brilliant. In the play he used many literary
devices and used them better than many writers of today. Some of the devices were
foreshadowing, comic relief, and motifs. There were many motifs, including bonds of all
kinds, love and hate, alien versus citizen, and place motifs. One place motif in
particular was that between Venice and Belmont. 
The Venice versus Belmont motif was a key to this play. It put an imaginary division
between the two so as to make them have two distinct personas. One way that the imaginary
divider was put in place was in the physical separation of the two. They were not exactly
close enough to commute to work everyday. The second way in which the two were separated
was that Belmont was an island with a beautiful mountain on it. This isolated it so that
the only way to get there was by a sea voyage. This required a lot of planning and money.
From this separation we also lose one of Aristotle's unities. He argued that a tragedy
must take place in one location. If there had been unity of place Portia would have lived
just around the corner and been easily accessible. This contributes to one of my previous
questions for why I do not think that this play is a tragedy.
One way that the two cities are different is in their reality. Venice is a very realistic
place. The people living and working in the town have real problems. Such as debt to
Shylock who will take everything that they own if they fail to make their payments. This
can be seen in our modern world. Many people borrow money from a bank but miss their
payments and have their assets seized. This happened to one of my neighbors. While Venice
has this reality to it Belmont is a city that one would see in a fairytale. Everything is
happy and nobody has any real problems. Sure Portia did not like the method in which her
husband was going to be picked but that may not have mattered. Depending on how you read
the play, Portia may have "rigged" the process by telling Bassanio which casket to pick.

Another difference in the Belmont versus Venice motif has to do with money. In Venice
money was continually topic of conversation. They were worried about it, borrowing it,
lending it, or touching it. Shylock was a character in Venice that dealt directly with
money. He did not just have others touch his money for him. He actually touched it and
paid for the things that he bought by himself. Whereas in Belmont none of the characters
had anything to do with money. It was never a concern to them. It was just magically
there. They also never physically touched the money. The had it and were rich but they
did not go and reach into their chest to grab a handful of gold. The debts were simply
taken care of, by someone else.
Another difference between the two cities was what the people were like. In describing
the people of Venice one would discover that they are very much like us. They are not
infallible, and have normal problems. Belmont is not so. They are god-like. I say this
because there is not one thing that they can not do. Whatever they set out to do is
accomplished with ease, no matter how big the task is. An example of this was when Portia
and Nerissa disguised themselves as men and masqueraded as a lawyer and his clerk. I pose
a question. Could two woman really go undetected as men? I think not. Another thing is
that they accomplished what they had wanted to do with so much ease. They just showed up
with some law that happened to save Antonio and doom Shylock. Why would the judge not
know about this law? This is simply because Portia is like a god. She can seemingly "pull
a rabbit out of her hat" whenever it is convenient. More evidence that Belmont is
god-like is that in the en!
d of the play the characters are talking about the Greek gods. This is just a little hint
as to what Shakespeare intended.
I think that this motif was very interesting. I did not notice it very much until we were
asked about it. Then I "saw the light". I saw what Shakespeare had done. This also made
me understand why Portia was able to save the day. I had found it a little hard to
believe that she was such a great lawyer with no training. I also wondered where that
mysterious law had come from.
#14
In The Merchant of Venice one is able to see many different motifs. These motifs are
literary devices that Shakespeare used intentionally. They make the play deeper and
provide a sort of continuity. This makes the play flow from one scene to another with
little difficulty and one does not really notice the breaks between scenes. The motifs
also recur throughout the play which gives the reader a sense of knowing what will
happen. It could be argued that Shakespeare used the motifs in a way that can be
considered as foreshadowing. This is possible because a reader knows what happened in the
situation of one motif and therefore if that motif is seen again they will have a sense
of the outcome. One motif in this play that is always present is the bond motif. There
are many different kinds of bonds in this play. They may be different on the surface, but
they are actually very similar.
One Bond in this play is that between Shylock and Antonio. This money bond is the most
visible bond in the entire play. Antonio was forced into this bond by his friendship. His
friendship to Bassanio could be argued to be his flaw. After all, it is what got him in
trouble in the first place and caused him to accept death at Shylock's hand. This bond
was weird from the very first moment that Shylock and Antonio began to discuss it. At
first Shylock was very angry at Antonio. He gave him a big lecture about how he had been
mistreated and then started to think about how much interest he should get. After a
little deliberation he decided that he would lend the money, not for interest, but rather
for a pound of flesh. Antonio thought that this was a silly thing and signed the bond
despite Bassanio's objections. A little side note about this bond is that it appeared to
be just a joke but in reality it turned out to be a potentially lethal situation.
Another motif in the play that I alluded to in the previous paragraph is the motif of
friendship. The friendship between Bassanio and Antonio was absolute. No one could break
it. This absoluteness appeared many times throughout the play. It was the main motivating
factor in Antonio's decision to enter into the money bond with Shylock. Another time that
it surfaced was when a messenger gave a letter to Bassanio from Antonio. In this letter
Antonio said that he forgave Bassanio and erased all of his debts to him. Then it also
came to light that Antonio did not care if he died, as long as Bassanio was there to see
him pay his debt.
A third bond motif in this play is the one of marriage. This is seen between Bassanio and
Portia and Gratiano and Nerissa. Both sets of people are planning to get married but
their plans are put on hold when Antonio's letter calls the men away. Before they left
though, their future wives gave them each a ring to keep with them forever. The rings
were the only real bond between the two couples because they were not yet married when
the men left for Antonio's trial. These rings provided the kind of bond that their
marriages would have given and gave Shakespeare a great opportunity to add some more
comedy later on in the play.
The final bond motif that I would like to discuss is the bond between Portia and her
father and Jessica and Shylock. These are both father to daughter bonds, although
Portia's father is dead. In both of the bonds the daughters try to abide by what their
fathers wanted them to do. Portia tried to abide by her father's casket idea and Jessica
tried to obey Shylock's wishes. However, in both of these bonds the daughters ended up
betraying their father's wishes. Jessica obviously did this when she ran away with a
Christian, Lorenzo. In Portia's case it was a little less obvious and could be
interpreted many ways. I think that she did betray her father in the casket choosing
business. One reason is because she would have put a bottle of wine on one of the caskets
to make one of her suitors pick the wrong casket. The second reason is that I think she
helped Bassanio pick the correct casket. When she had music played during his selection
process it seemed to have a hidden mess!
age. It told him that the caskets were not what they appeared to be and that he should
not judge them by their external appearance. This was clearly an attempt to pick her own
husband and I think that she tried to fool herself into thinking that she had fulfilled
her father's wishes.
All of these bond motifs appear to be different. However, if you look deeper into the
situations it is possible to see a common trend. In each case the bonds are broken in
some sense. The rings were given away, the pound of flesh was not taken, and Antonio did
not want Bassanio's help in the court room. This fact was not visible to me until I had
read the entire play but I am now glad that I have looked deeper into these bonds. 
#19
In The Merchant of Venice there are many speeches from which great quotes can be taken.
Many of these quotes bear an uncanny resemblance to reality. It is amazing that the lines
of a play that was written so long ago could be so profound and applicable to modern day
life. The quote for my question is, "All that glisters is not gold; often have you heard
that told. . ." In the final packet the word "that" was "it". I found this error when I
looked through the play and found the quote. Fortunately this did not take me a long time
because I knew the approximate spot that it had been stated. This quote has central
importance to the entire play. It most directly applies to the caskets but it also
includes other things.
This quote has central importance to the play for many reasons. My first reason is
because it is in the midst of one of the major conflicts in the play. The Prince of
Morocco read this quote from the scroll inside the gold casket that he had chosen, which
was incorrect. The caskets are really the cause of the whole play because they started
the chain of events leading to the bond. If Bassanio had not needed the money to court
Portia the bond would have never been made. The quote also holds great importance because
it alludes to a theme in the play. This is that things are not necessarily what they
appear to be. "All that glisters is not gold" tells the reader that gold is not the only
thing that matters or that it is the most desirable. It may seem to be the best choice on
the outside, but on the inside it contains a person's doom. The second part of the quote
is, "often have your heard that told" holds deep meaning also. It can tell the audience
that in their culture m!
ost people did choose the thing that was desirable on the surface. This allows one to
believe that the Prince would have chosen the wrong one and honestly thought that his
reasoning was sound. This also applies to the Prince of Aragon that picked the silver
casket thinking that he deserved Portia. 
Another part of the play that this quote applies to is in the reality versus appearance
motif other than that of the caskets. One example is about the bond between Shylock and
Antonio. The quote could be seen as meaning that money is not the only thing that
matters, though often it seems that it is the only thing that matters. This could easily
describe Shylock and make a reader interpret the story in a certain way. It would make
one think that Shylock knows that money is not the only thing that matters and that he is
willing to sacrifice it for revenge. Another example of how the quote applies to the
reality versus appearance motif is in the case of Jessica and Shylock. In this
relationship the quote would mean that respect and obedience is always present, though it
may at times