It's A Trap!
I tried to look at both sides of the argument and I just can't help but feel like Portia is trapping Shylock. I know she tries to give him a chance to do the right thing by reminding Shylock that Bassanio has three times the original amount Antonio agreed to give him: "Be Merciful. Take thrice the money. Bid me tear the bond." But Shylock is so set on his revenge that he is blinded to reason and compassion. He has been kicked around all his life and things are finally looking up for him. He's smug and over confident, telling the judge she is sound and intelligent. I think by doing this he may have even ticked Portia off. She doesn't need a Jew to tell her she's intelligent. Then she asks if Shylock had a doctor for Antonio and when he said it wasn't stated in the bond, she basically lost it. She then uses these quotes he told her to put him in a corner for the rest of the trial, "The bond doth give thee here no jot of blood," "But just a pound of flesh. If thou tak'st more or less than just a pound...thou diest, and all they goods confiscate." She then baits him, saying "Why doth the Jew pause? Take thy forfieiture," and when Shylock sees the error of his ways (basically learning his lesson) and instead asks just for the money, Portia won't let him have it. He didn't even ask for the larger sum, just the original amount, at least what I think he is asking for. Though Portia did give him a chance to right his wrong at the beginning, she shouldn't have taken advantage of him like that. She probably knew the law inside and out whereas Shylock seemed to not really understand it at all. It just wasn't a fair fight.
*Tina
- RedJacketGirl's blog
- Login to post comments


Sympathy for their devil.
You say you feel sorry for Shylock because of the way Portia so bamboozled him. Well, I also feel for the blight of the Jewish people and all that jazz but Shylock screwed himself. I approached this play objectively and found that although Shylock has every right to be pissed he asked for the flesh after being offered three times the sum originally lent and in doing so set himself up for anyone smart enough to get Antonio out of trouble. The contract did in fact only call for a pound of flesh, not mentioning any blood or Antonio's death. Granted Shylock was written by a racist so the greed probably is written in to accentuate the stereotype of Shakespeare’s day. The play without the history or controversy is just a play about someone who happens to be a Jew being screwed out of a contract he didn’t cover all his bases on.
objectivity
Scholar Raymond Williams, and many others, have shown that there really is no objectivity in the world, though we often think there might be some. We can seem objective, but it's all but impossible because everyone has a personal and cultural ideology that's been shaped over the years. Because of this, we value some things over other things. For instance, on what might we base a claim that Shakespeare is racist? Would it be the same sort of thing that gets Mark Twain or Charles Dickens that branding, because they create characters who are racist? Perhaps such fidelity to truth is what the anti-racist needs to do to expose racism. Bradley