Looking for Merchant of Venice help

[rosends]

Shylock makes a strong protest against eating and drinking with Bassanio et al in act 1 scene 3:

I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, and so following, but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you.

but shortly after, he goes to have dinner at Bassanio's party!

He is invited in 24, when Lancelet says that he is going to Shylock's:

Marry, sir, to bid my old master the Jew to sup tonight with my new master the Christian.

We never see the exact invitation extended, but in response, Shylock referred to it as "I am bid forth to supper, Jessica." SUPPER. Not even just "party".

And clearly, Bassanio had reason to expect that Shylock was coming even though the last time it was mentioned, Shylock made it clear that he wasn't eating with him. Lancelet reports, " My young master doth expect your reproach." Ignoring the joke of "reproach" Lancelet is reporting an expectation! Shylock later calls it "feasting" (line 36).

What happened? Shylock said "no" and soon after there is an expectation that he changed his mind and said "yes." His argument against going was dietary (and to a lesser degree, social) but he seems to throw out the reasoning and decide to go and "feed off the prodigal Christian" (which could be interpreted to mean to help Bassanio waste money by accepting whatever is offered).

Any help is appreciated.

 

[cocolia42]

We never see the exact invitation extended, but in response, Shylock referred to it as "I am bid forth to supper, Jessica."
Any help is appreciated.

Continue reading there. Something about they flatter me and I'll go in hate....

Sorry, I haven't read Shakespeare in over 20 years.

 

[rosends]

Continue reading there. Something about they flatter me and I'll go in hate....

Sorry, I haven't read Shakespeare in over 20 years.

Yes, he says that they don't invite him out of love, so he chooses to go out of hate. But the question is why does he choose to go at all.

 

[cocolia42]

Yes, he says that they don't invite him out of love, so he chooses to go out of hate. But the question is why does he choose to go at all.

Don't take this as the right answer, because as I said, I haven't read shakespeare in over 20 years.
But I'm thinking (1) he hated how Christians wasted money. So here was an opportunity to have them waste their money on him. (2) Wasn't the loan Shylock gave to Antonio actually for Bassanio? Wouldn't this waste of money make it less likely that Antonio could pay back the loan in time?

 

[rosends]

Don't take this as the right answer, because as I said, I haven't read shakespeare in over 20 years.
But I'm thinking (1) he hated how Christians wasted money. So here was an opportunity to have them waste their money on him. (2) Wasn't the loan Shylock gave to Antonio actually for Bassanio? Wouldn't this waste of money make it less likely that Antonio could pay back the loan in time?

He does say that he is happy to help the prodigal Christian waste his money. He later says that he sent Gobbo to work for Bassanio because it would deplete Bassanio's money faster so that is all true. But if Shylock refuses to eat with them for the religious reasons he cites, is the fact that he "changes his mind" supposed to be a character flaw, that he is willing to subsume his religious convictions in an effort to hurt Bassanio?

 

[cocolia42]

is the fact that he "changes his mind" supposed to be a character flaw, that he is willing to subsume his religious convictions in an effort to hurt Bassanio?

Well, yeah. He has plenty of character flaws I think. He is greedy and selfish and prejudiced...but...why? Is his disgust of the Christians a result of how he is treated by them? Perhaps it speaks to how far one will go for revenge? IDK

 

[rosends]

Well, yeah. He has plenty of character flaws I think. He is greedy and selfish and prejudiced...but...why? Is his disgust of the Christians a result of how he is treated by them? Perhaps it speaks to how far one will go for revenge? IDK

IT presents an interesting question because it undercuts major criticisms of him -- his adherence to his religion. Is abandoning his religious principles a good thing because it brings him closer to the Christians or a bad thing because it shows hypocrisy in his character. Then the question of "why" further muddles things. My take is that it is inconsistent with his character and is a flaw in the development.

 

[wizanda]

The film with Al Pacino as Shylock, helps understand it....Shakespeare was to be watched, not read.

The Merchant of Venice

 

[rosends]

The film with Al Pacino as Shylock, helps understand it....Shakespeare was to be watched, not read.

The Merchant of Venice

Shakespeare was meant to be watched in 1599 in the Globe (or Rose or Swan) while standing up, or sitting on a bedbug infested cushion (if you were rich). A text published in 1600 is intended to be read.

 

[wizanda]

A text published in 1600 is intended to be read.

Shakespeare was a playwright; not a novelist.

 

[rosends]

Shakespeare was a playwright; not a novelist.

He was a playwright, an actor and a director. He was also interested in getting paid. On top of that he had pride in his works as written texts (you should look at the overall length of the Q2 Hamlet -- it could never be played that way).

 

[cocolia42]

IT presents an interesting question because it undercuts major criticisms of him -- his adherence to his religion. Is abandoning his religious principles a good thing because it brings him closer to the Christians or a bad thing because it shows hypocrisy in his character. Then the question of "why" further muddles things. My take is that it is inconsistent with his character and is a flaw in the development.

What it says to me is that man's base human desire for revenge is stronger than his spiritual desire to stick to his religion.
Is that necessarily a character flaw? Some people would say no.