Society can be seen as an anarchic structure due to the existence of free will, but a code of social order exists and thus allows for order in society. At times though there are others who rebel against the prevailing order and this can cause for a chaotic situation to arise. Frequently though these revolts result in failure for those who instigate it, but for those who revolt with pure intentions there is the reward of success. In Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice and Richard II, we can draw examples of unrest that results in both failure and success. Due to the presence of these ideas in Shakespeare’s play we can come to question what his attitude toward rebellions and authority and can conclude that he obviously saw the benefit in questioning authority, but realized that many uprisings resulted in failure. Whether this failure occurred immediately, it would always indefinitely result in defeat. The Merchant of Venice and Richard II show us that when one makes the decision to go against authority it can result in an everlasting change that can be for the better or worse, but ultimately will lead to their eventual demise and destruction.
In the play The Merchant of Venice we see the negative effect that rebellion can have against social order that is based on segregation and racism. Shylock, a Jewish man in the play is portrayed as a blood thirsty money-grubber, and is constantly put down by many of the Christians in Venice. Specifically he is constantly attacked by Antonio. When Shylock is given the chance to now take his revenge upon Antonio we see that there is a man, Shylock, who is identified as a creature rather than human. Shylock takes his opportunity against Antonio to not rebel against the social order when he ...
... middle of paper ...
...aken from him for his attempt to one-up the social system. As well in Richard II we see that in the end the one who tried to steal the throne from the rightful king will in the near future be destroyed. This may have been one of the reasons why Queen Elizabeth I allowed for the publishing Richard II, because at the final end of the historic story we see the destruction of Bolingbroke. Shakespeare understood that authority was an integral part of sustaining a society and thus portrayed this eloquently in each of his plays.
The Merchant of Venice and Richard II show us that when one makes the decision to go against authority it will result in a change that is for the worse and will ultimately lead to the eventual demise and destruction. Society is as an anarchic structure and without authority and a social code the existence of a cohesive world would not be possible.
Throughout Richard II, Bolingbroke is up against King Richard. Richard is, to a considerable degree, the morally void opportunist: he does after all sieze Gaunt's lands at the moment of his death, taking the entire inheritance away from Gaunt's sons. Richard lacks a sense of morality when it is to his advantage to ignore morality, and proclaims what is right when he thinks he can save his crown. At Gaunt's death, when York attemps to point out that what Richard is doing is wrong, Richard says simply: 'Think what you will, we sieze into our hands/ His plate, his goods, his money and his lands'. Yet later, as Richard is surrounded and on the verge of defeat: 'We are amazed, and thus long have we stood/ To watch the fearful bending of thy knee,/ Because we thought ourself thy lawful king;/ And if we be, how dare thy joints forget/ To pay their awful duty to our presence?'. Richard uses morality as a tool, a necessary quality in a good ruler, yet he is not manipulative enough. Bolingbroke not only ignores morality in his dealings, but keeps up the appearance of moral right and goodness. Bolingbroke knows how to let others take the fall...
Some of the audiences in the 16th century, believed that Jews were at a lower stage than them, and they only believed this because the Jews were a different (“different” referred to as “wrong “for Christians who lived in the 16th century), religion they believed they were not people, like them. The play Merchant of Venice shows the evil side of the Jews. The character’s name is “Shylock”. He is the character of evil doing; he is also the character that Shakespeare chose to represent a Jewish character. As a Jew, he represents the race as being wicked, evil etc.
In King Lear, Shakespeare portrays a society whose emphasis on social class results in a strict social hierarchy fueled by the unceasing desire to improve one’s social status. It is this desire for improved social status that led to the unintentional deterioration of the social hierarchy in King Lear. This desire becomes so great that Edmund, Goneril, Reagan and Cornwall were willing to act contrary to the authority of the social hierarchy for the betterment of their own position within it. As the plot unfolds, the actions of the aforementioned characters get progressively more desperate and destructive as they realize their lack of success in attaining their personal goals. The goals vary, however the selfish motivation does not. With Edmund, Goneril, Reagan and Cornwall as examples, Shakespeare portrays the social hierarchy as a self-defeating system because it fosters desires in its members that motivate them to act against the authority of the hierarchy to benefit themselves. A consideration of each characters actions in chronological order and the reasons behind such actions reveals a common theme among the goals for which morality is abandoned.
According to many, Shakespeare intentionally portrays Richard III in ways that would have the world hail him as the ultimate Machiavel. This build up only serves to further the dramatic irony when Richard falls from his throne. The nature of Richard's character is key to discovering the commentary Shakespeare is delivering on the nature of tyrants. By setting up Richard to be seen as the ultimate Machiavel, only to have him utterly destroyed, Shakespeare makes a dramatic commentary on the frailty of tyranny and such men as would aspire to tyrannical rule.
Written one year apart from the other, one cannot fail to recognize the parallels between William Shakespeare's tragedies Julius Caesar and Hamlet. To begin, they are both stories of assassinations gone horribly wrong. Although the details of the plays are different, the two assassins (Brutus and Hamlet) provide interesting comparison. Through these two killers, Shakespeare reveals the different levels of justice; one’s personal sense of justice; others’ perception of justice; the justice of the monarchy that supports Shakespeare’s craft. Through this, the audience realizes that a just person is not always a humble one, a condition that may turn out to be a fatal flaw in the end. When a man decides to play God by taking justice into his own hands, the world can unravel much more quickly than he had ever imagined.
Everyone who reads The Merchant of Venice must bear in mind that it is, like any other literary work, a creation of a skillful writer, rising a case that can be a subject for many interpretations and not necessarily revealing a specific view of its writer, however it aims to convey a certain moral to the readers. Therefore, the character of shylock, being stereotyped or not, with its controversy is a tool manipulated to convey a moral message: when people live in a society that is open to cultural diversity and that values the contributions of all society members – regardless of cultural and ethnic backgrounds, race, life styles, and beliefs – they will be one step closer to living in a civil society. Works Cited 1) Encyclopaedia Britannica, the definition of "Anti-Semitism". 2) E. E. Stoll, Shylock (an essay in Shakespeare Studies, 1927). 3) John Palmer, Comic Characters of Shakespeare, Shylock. 4) John Palmer, Comic Characters of Shakespeare, Shylock.
The Merchant of Venice is a play that deals with an assortment of issues that range from politics to racial views of the Jewish people. An embodiment of these two issues can be best attributed to the character of Shylock. In a 2004 production of The Merchant of Venice, by Michael Radford, we see the character of Shylock is portrayed in a different light than that of Shakespeare's 1594 villainous Jew. Both productions pose a series of questions in comparison. An understanding of the era that these plays were written in and the audience’s perception of the production attribute greatly to a true analysis. Another aspect of these productions asks who Shylock was to Shakespeare and who he has developed into for Al Pacino and Michael Radford.
In Shakespeare's The merchant of Venice there is a clear clash of opinions between Antonio and Shylock. Most of the characters in the play are definitely against Shylock because he is Jewish. But is the message that Shakespeare is putting across saying that all people should hate Jewish people? I think that it could well be for these reasons.
At the end of The Merchant of Venice, Shylock has been both a victim and a villain. He is a victim of his religion, and a victim of his greed and overwhelming need for revenge. Shylock is definitely the most villainous character in the play, and only a few elements can show him as a victim overall, even then, his victimisation only seems to be a consequence of his own actions. His daughter running away, because of her treatment, and apparent lack of love. The taking of his assets, because he would show no mercy towards Antonio. The final conclusion must be that Shylock is unreasonable, spiteful, heinous, greedy - and a villain.
Being a Jew in Christian dominated Venice, Shylock is persecuted by society. He is the victim of popular Christian prejudice, which scorns his religion and restricts his means of employment. He is left with no choice but to be a moneylender and earn his money from collecting interest. To the Christians, collecting interest was against their teaching. This is one of the reasons for the Christians hatred.
...ivisive agent, actually been voided, or only cast aside? Is Shylock and Antonio’s code of honor truly obsolete? A sense of false sincerity permeates the final scene. The temporal ambiguity between night and day with which the play ends suggests that a complete resolution has not been achieved. In being neither night nor day, it ends in a kind of dramatic unreality. Metatheatrical in its elevation of words and language, The Merchant of Venice is consciously distinct from the realism of the off-stage world. And yet in the course of its five acts, the play fails to define a solid dramatic “otherworld,” in which new values and authorities are introduced and made permanent. Rather, it seems to end ambiguously, and fragmented. It falls short of true resolution, and concludes with a statement of shortcoming, informing us that there are still “two hours to day” (V.i.325).
In both of Shakespeare’s plays, "Othello" and "The Merchant of Venice", there are several instances in which the non-white and non-Christian characters are marginalized and are often the victims of prejudice and outright racism. This occurs in both "Merchant of Venice" and "Othello" particularly through the use and power of language and terms of reference. What is most fascinating about this seeming racism and bias against these characters, Othello and Shylock, is that they aren’t represented in either text as completely fitting the villainous or negative stereotypes other characters wish to put them in. Both Othello and Shylock are presented as sympathetic to varying degrees and although they posses several character flaws that some of the white and Christian characters wish to attribute to their race (Jewish as greedy and heartless and Moors as savage and barbarous) Shakespeare does not completely rely on these stereotypes to draw his characters of these two men. Although Shylock is indeed money-hungry, greedy, and oftentimes heartless, he is still portrayed sympathetically at points and his faults are not shown to be something associated with his race. Othello, most notably at the end of the play commits a savage act, but throughout the rest of the text, he is shown to be mild-mannered and exceptionally “civilized” as a general and aristocrat. This softening allows the characters to be represented as more rounded, but the fact still remains that racial bias and outright racism and prejudice are present in both texts.
Discrimination is a resounding theme in The Merchant of Venice (Meyers). All of the characters are affected by inequality. This inequity is evidenced clearly in Shylock, the Jewish usurer. He is treated with scorn and derision by all the characters. Shylock’s misfortunes stem not from poor attributes or even a poor background; it stems from the fact he is Jewish, and what is more, he is impenitent of that distinction. If he had been more daunted by Christian influence, he might have been forgiven, as Jessica is subjectively exonerated. He is not contrite and it is believed that his appalling birth cannot be absolved (Bonnell).
Shylock is a wealthy Jew who invests money into shipments and trades. When Shylock’s enemy, Antonio, requests a loan of 3000 ducats, “Shylock adopts this Christian model of "kind" lending in his bond with Antonio as a means for lawful revenge.” Shylock’s agreement is that if the ducats are not returned, Antonio must repay his loan in human flesh. This is a way for Shylock to either make money or kill a Christian, either will satisfy him. Lee describes Shylock’s feelings towards Christians, “Indeed, although Shylock will neither "eat," "drink," nor "pray" with the Christians, he is willing to "buy" and "sell" with them.” This is where Shakespeare first introduces the devil inside Shylock. Had Antonio been a Jew, there would not have been a payment of flesh. Shylock’s hatred propels the story from start to finish. His hatred causes him to lose his daughter, drives Portia to use her money and wit to save Antonio, and why he ends up losing
At the end of The Merchant of Venice, Shylock has been both a victim and a villain. He is a victim of his religion, and a victim of his greed and overwhelming need for revenge. Shylock is definitely the most villainous character in the play, and only a few elements can show him as a victim overall, even then, his victimisation only seems to be a consequence of his own actions. His daughter running away, because of her treatment, and apparent lack of love. The taking of his assets, because he would show no mercy towards Antonio. The final conclusion must be that Shylock is unreasonable, spiteful, heinous, greedy - and a villain.