Shylock: Villain/Victim? T3P2
Shylock is a character who plays a vital role in the Merchant of Venice. Many people have attempted to classify him as a villain or a victim but to no avail. In this post, I will be discussing the reason why Shylock is both a villain and a victim.
Firstly, Shylock is extremely vengeful and he will stop at nothing to get his revenge. He is unmerciful and unforgiving. When Salerio asks Shylock what good would Antonio's flesh do Shylock if Antonio forfeits the bond, he replies, "If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation." The quote shows his extreme hatred for Antonio, to the point where he does not mind paying three thousand ducats just to have Antonio's flesh. He mentions many times that he does not mind losing his money to have Antonio's "carrion flesh".
Next, Shylock is extremely shrewd and cunning, having planned his murder of Antonio right from the start. When discussing the forfeiture of the bond, Shylock says "let the forfeiture be nominated for an equal pound of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken in what part of the body pleaseth me." What appears to be him suggesting a forfeiture playfully is actually him setting a death trap for Antonio to walk into.
Firstly, Shylock is extremely vengeful and he will stop at nothing to get his revenge. He is unmerciful and unforgiving. When Salerio asks Shylock what good would Antonio's flesh do Shylock if Antonio forfeits the bond, he replies, "If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation." The quote shows his extreme hatred for Antonio, to the point where he does not mind paying three thousand ducats just to have Antonio's flesh. He mentions many times that he does not mind losing his money to have Antonio's "carrion flesh".
Next, Shylock is extremely shrewd and cunning, having planned his murder of Antonio right from the start. When discussing the forfeiture of the bond, Shylock says "let the forfeiture be nominated for an equal pound of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken in what part of the body pleaseth me." What appears to be him suggesting a forfeiture playfully is actually him setting a death trap for Antonio to walk into.
However, Shylock may not be the villain he is made out to be. He was also mocked by the Christians for being a Jew. It was mentioned several times that Antonio spat and kicked at him as if he were a dog. Also, the Christians taunt and compare him to the devil. Throughout the book, he is referred to as "Jew" rather than by his name.
His daughter was also brought away by Christians, Antonio's friends. I feel that Shylock has a right to be outraged at his daughter's outright betrayal. With his daughter gone and that she was taken by Lorenzo, a Christian, Shylock naturally placed the blame on Christians as a whole. I feel that Shylock is wrong to be outraged but he has his reasons as to why he wants vengeance so badly. After all, he is only human.
6 Comments:
How interesting it is to hear you having another perspective about Shylock! It is extremely well said, about how Shylock was actually a 'victim' in a sense in the story. An applause for your enthusiastic efforts! All the best! :)
Good that you are able to view things from two different points of view. So what is your main take? Is he a villain or is he a victim? To me, I would say that he is still more of a villain in this case. As you have said, Shylock was out to murder Antonio, and no human has the right to do so unless the other party has truly done something evil and unacceptable to him. However, the only thing that Antonio did was calling him a dog, kicking him and spitting on him (not that he was any right to do so either). Thus, I'd say that Shylock is still a villain overall.
It is indeed interesting to see the way you view things from two points of view. Personally, I would think that Shylock is more of a victim to start off, and then in order to take revenge for what Antonio has done to him, tries to murder him, and thus he becomes a villain. It can be said that Shylock's villainy was a result of him being a victim at first, so there is nothing wrong with his actions. However, it can also be said that attempting to murder Antonio just for name calling is too extreme.
Maybe it would be wiser for us to consider that William Shakespeare may not be the racist one, but just trying to balance out the popularity of his shows and his conscience. After all, we have to remember that in his era, people were prejudiced against Jews and most would have written not a positive part about Jews in a play. However, William Shakespeare managed to make Shylock a proper human, instead of a manifestation of a devil that is heartless, greedy, and murders Antonio in cold blood for no reason, which I believe most racist playwrights would have done so.
Considering the historical background of this novel, Europe at that time was mostly void of Jews, however even after 500 years after the exile of Jews from various parts of Europe, Europe still bore much resentment towards Jews. Shakespeare himself was probably racist, but in Europe in that time spitting on and kicking Jews was probably "normal", and not racist. As Ms Huang mentioned in class, the crowd would have probably cheered when Antonio said he was going to spit on and kick Shylock again. In that context, Shylock was a villain because he wanted revenge for something he was meant to suffer.
I personally feel that it is good to consider things from different points of view, in this case whether Shylock is a villain or victim. Although Shylock has been discriminated and should be considered as the victim but I think that he is the villain instead. When one is discriminated, there are many ways to settle this issue but the main intention of Shylock was revenge. He was out to take Antonio's life and such an act is totally not tolerated be it in any race or religion.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home