The Merchant of Venice

By William Shakespeare

Believed to have been written between 1596 and 1598, William Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” is considered by some critics as one of his “problem plays”. The controversy over the work stems from its portrayal of the character Shylock, a rich Jewish moneylender. The stereotypical depiction of Jews as avaricious usurers was common to the drama of the Elizabethan period. The story centers on the love of Bassanio, a young Venetian nobleman, who wishes to woo the beautiful and wealthy heiress Portia of Belmont. Having squandered his estate, Bassanio turns to Antonio, the titular Merchant of Venice, for a loan. However, since Antonio has his money invested in merchandise at sea, Bassanio must turn to Shylock for the loan. Shylock, after much reluctance, agrees to make the loan on the condition that if it cannot be repaid he may extract a pound of flesh from Antonio. This controversial characterization of the vengeful Jewish moneylender has been criticized by some as blatantly anti-Semitic, while others have read the play as a plea for tolerance, citing Shylock a sympathetic character. With elements of both comedy and tragedy “The Merchant of Venice” is a work that to this day has continued to defy classification. This edition includes a preface and annotations by Henry N. Hudson, an introduction by Charles H. Herford, and a biographical afterword.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Digireads.com Publishing
• Release date: Sep 21, 2020
• ISBN: 9781420977608

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare is widely regarded as the greatest playwright the world has seen. He produced an astonishing amount of work; 37 plays, 154 sonnets, and 5 poems. He died on 23rd April 1616, aged 52, and was buried in the Holy Trinity Church, Stratford.

Book preview

cover.jpg

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE

By WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

Preface and Annotations by

HENRY N. HUDSON

Introduction by

CHARLES H. HERFORD

The Merchant of Venice

By William Shakespeare

Preface and Annotations by Henry N. Hudson

Introduction by Charles H. Herford

Print ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-7593-2

eBook ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-7760-8

This edition copyright © 2021. Digireads.com Publishing.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Cover Image: A detail of ‘With Bated Breath and Whispering Humbleness’, illustration from ‘The Merchant of Venice’, c. 1910 (colour litho), Linton, James Dromgole (1840-1916) / Private Collection / Bridgeman Images.

Please visit www.digireads.com

CONTENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

ACT I.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

ACT II.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

SCENE IV.

SCENE V.

SCENE VI.

SCENE VII.

SCENE VIII.

ACT III.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

SCENE IV.

SCENE V.

ACT IV.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

ACT V.

SCENE I.

BIOGRAPHICAL AFTERWORD

Preface

Registered at the Stationers’ in July, 1598, but with a special proviso, that it be not printed without license first had from the Right-Honourable the Lord Chamberlain. The theatrical company to which Shakespeare belonged were then known as The Lord Chamberlain’s Servants; and the purpose of the proviso was to keep the play out of print till the company’s permission were given through their patron. The play was entered again at the same place in October, 1600, his lordship’s license having probably been obtained by that time. Accordingly two editions of it were published in the course of that year, one by James Roberts, the other by Thomas Heyes. These were evidently printed from two distinct manuscripts, both of which had probably been transcribed from the author’s original copy. The play was never issued again, that we know of, till in the folio of 1623. The repetition of certain peculiarities shows it to have been there printed, with some alterations, from the quarto of Heyes.

The Merchant of Venice was also mentioned by Francis Meres in his Wit’s Treasury, 1598. How long before that time the play was written we have no means of knowing; but, judging from the style, we cannot well assign the writing to a much earlier date; though there is some reason for thinking it may have been on the stage four years earlier; as Henslowe’s Diary records The Venetian Comedy as having been originally acted in August, 1594. It is by no means certain, however, that this refers to Shakespeare’s play; while the workmanship here shows such maturity and variety of power as argue against that supposal. It evinces, in a considerable degree, the easy, unlabouring freedom of conscious mastery; the persons being so entirely under the author’s control, and subdued to his hand, that he seems to let them talk and act just as they have a mind to. Therewithal the style, throughout, is so even and sustained; the word and the character are so fitted to each other; the laws of dramatic proportion are so well observed; and the work is so free from any jarring or falling-out from the due course and order of art; as to justify the belief that the whole was written in same stage of intellectual growth and furnishing.

In the composition of this play the Poet drew largely from preceding writers. Novelty of plot or story there is almost none. Nevertheless, in conception and development of character, in poetical texture and grain, in sap and flavour of wit and humour, and in all that touches the real life and virtue of the workmanship, it is one of the most original productions that ever issued from the human mind. Of the materials here used, some were so much the common stock of European literature before the Poet’s time, and had been run into so many variations, that it is not easy to say what sources he was most indebted to for them.

It is beyond question that there was an earlier play running more or less upon the same or similar incidents. For Stephen Gosson published, in 1579, a tract entitled The School of Abuse, in which he mentions a certain play as The Jew, shown at the Bull, representing the greediness of worldly choosers, and the bloody minds of usurers. This would fairly infer that Shakespeare was not the first to combine, in dramatic form, the two incidents of the caskets and the pound of flesh: but, nothing further being now known touching the order and character of that older performance, we can affirm nothing as to how far he may have followed or used it in the composition of his play.

The original of the casket-lottery dates far back in the days of Mediaeval Romance; and the substance of it was variously repeated, from time to time, by successive authors, till Shakespeare spoilt it for further use. It is met with in the Gesta Romanorum, an old and curious collection of tales; and, as the version there given is clearly identified as the one used by Shakespeare directly or indirectly, it seems hardly worth the while to notice, here, any of the other versions.

Anselm, Emperor of Rome, having been long childless, has at length a son born to him. His great enemy, the King of Naples, wishing to end their strife, proposes a marriage between his daughter and the Emperor’s son. The latter consents, and in due time the princess embarks for Rome. A terrible storm arising, the ship is wrecked, and all on board perish except the princess. Before she can make good her escape, she is swallowed by a huge whale. But she happens to be armed with a sharp knife, which she uses so vigorously in her strange lodging, that the whale soon has the worst of it. The monster thereupon makes for the shore, and is there killed by a knight, who rescues the princess, and takes her under his protection. On relating her story, she is conveyed to the Emperor, who, to prove whether she is worthy of his son, puts before her three vessels: the first made of pure gold, and outwardly set with rich gems, but within full of dead men’s bones; the second made of fine silver, but filled with earth and worms; the third made of lead, but full within of precious stones. On the first is inscribed Whoso chooseth me shall find what he deserveth; on the second, Whoso chooseth me shall find what his nature desireth; on the third, Whoso chooseth me shall find what God has disposed to him. The Emperor then orders her to choose one of the vessels, telling her that, if she chooses that which will profit herself and others, she shall have his son. The princess chooses the third, and is forthwith married to the young prince.

The incidents of the bond, the forfeiture, the pound of flesh, and the mode in which the penalty is escaped, are also related in the Gesta Romanorum, but not in connection with that of the caskets. It is certain, however, that in this the Poet did not draw from the Gesta, but, directly or indirectly, from an Italian novel, by Giovanni Fiorentino, written as early as 1378, though not printed till 1500. The main points of the story are as follows:

Giannetto, the adopted son of a Venetian merchant, Ansaldo, gets permission to visit Alexandria. On his voyage he lands at Belmont, where he finds a lady of great wealth and beauty, and falls deeply in love with her. He returns to Venice, asks for a supply of money to enable him to prosecute his love-suit, and Ansaldo borrows 10,000 ducats of a Jew on the condition that, if the money be not repaid by a certain day, Ansaldo shall forfeit a pound of his flesh, to be cut off by the Jew. Giannetto gains the lady in marriage; but, forgetful of the bond, prolongs his stay at Belmont till the day of payment is past. Hastening to Venice, he finds the Jew rigid in exacting the penalty, and not to be turned from it even by ten times the amount of the loan. The bride, knowing the merchant’s position, disguises herself as a doctor of law, repairs to Venice, and gets herself introduced as a judge into the court where the case is on trial: for in Italy, at that time, nice and difficult points of law were determined, not by the ordinary judges, but by doctors of law from Padua, Bologna, and other famous law-schools. The lady, unrecognized by her husband, learns the nature of the case, and, after reading the bond, calls on the Jew to take the pound of flesh, but tells him he must take neither more nor less than exactly a pound, and that he must shed no blood. An executioner is at hand to behead him in case any blood be drawn. The Jew then says he will accept the 100,000 ducats offered; but, as he has declared up and down repeatedly that he will have nothing but the pound of flesh, the judge refuses to allow any repayment of money whatever; and the Jew in a rage tears up the bond and quits the court. Hereupon Giannetto, overjoyed at the happy issue, yields up to the judge, in token of his gratitude, a ring which his wife had given him on their marriage-day; and the judge, on returning home and putting off the disguise, rails at her husband in fine terms about his parting with the ring, which she says she is sure he must have given to some woman.

There is also an old ballad entitled The cruelty of Gernutus, a Jew, who, lending to a Merchant a hundred crowns, would have a pound of his flesh, because he could not pay him at the day appointed. The ballad is of uncertain date; but Bishop Percy, who reprints it in his Reliques from an ancient blackletter copy, justly infers it to have been earlier than the play, because it differs from the play in many circumstances which a mere ballad-maker would hardly have given himself the trouble to alter. I subjoin so much of it as is pertinent to the occasion:

In Venice town, not long ago,

A cruel Jew did dwell,

Which lived all on usury,

As Italian writers tell.

Within that city dwelt that time

A merchant of great fame,

Which, being distressed, in his need

Unto Gernutus came;

Desiring him to stand his friend,

For twelvemonth and a day

To lend to him an hundred crowns;

And he for it would pay

Whatsoever he would demand of him;

And pledges he should have.

No, quoth the Jew with fleering looks,

Sir, ask what you will have.

No penny for the loan of it

For one year you shall pay:

You may do me as good a turn,

Before my dying day.

But we will have a merry jest

For to be talked long:

You shall make me a bond, quoth he,

That shall be large and strong.

And this shall be the forfeiture,—

Of your own flesh a pound:

If you agree, make you the bond,

And here is a hundred crowns.

With right good will! the merchant says;

And so the bond was made.

When twelvemonth and a day drew on,

That back it should be paid,

The merchant’s ships were all at sea,

And money came not in:

Which way to take, or what to do,

To think he doth begin.

Some offer’d for his hundred crowns

Five hundred for to pay;

And some a thousand, two, or three,

Yet still he did denay.

And, at the last, ten thousand crowns

They offer’d, him to save:

Gernutus said, I will no gold,—

My forfeit I will have.

The bloody Jew now ready is,

With whetted blade in hand,

To spoil the blood of innocent,

By forfeit of his bond.

And, as he was about to strike

In him the deadly blow,

Stay, quoth the judge, thy cruelty,—

I charge thee to do so.

Sith needs thou wilt thy forfeit have,

Which is of flesh a pound,

See that thou shed no drop of blood.

Nor yet the man confound.

For, if thou do, like murderer

Thou here shalt hanged be;

Likewise of flesh see that thou cut

No more than ’longs to thee;

For if

Reviews for The Merchant of Venice

[bobbybslax · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

It has a lot of similarities to "The Comedy of Errors," but its genre is more a mix of comedy, drama, and romance, than a plain comedy. There were several relationships to keep track of. Overall, I found the dilemma of contracts and Shylock's character interesting, but the play felt less satisfying than its companion.

[rahkan-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I think Shylock is one of Shakespeare's most powerful characters, even though the plot of this play is unusually cracked-out, even for the Bard.

[jhudsui_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I don't really get this one. If Shylock is supposed to be the sympathetic character his vindictiveness towards Antonio isn't given enough support to be understandable. If Portia is then it's racist garbage. Either way I have to say I'm not feeling it. The ring subplot is cute I guess.

[meandmybooks-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Waffling between four and five stars for this. Four and a half, we'll say. The speeches, the characters, the ideas... so much that was beautiful and thought-provoking. I'm afraid that what I'm having a hard time loving is any of the characters. They are too... real. Their flaws are too visible and ugly, and their modest virtues fail to compensate. The character who inspires the most compassion, Shylock, is also the one who is most ruthlessly cruel, and Portia, the character who is presented as most clear-thinking, pure, and righteous, is also merciless, petty, and vindictive. The juxtaposition of comic and tragic elements, as when Shylock cries in anguish, “Out upon her! Thou torturest me,Tubal. Itwas my turquoise. I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor.I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys.”along with the mixture of cruelty and kindness in several characters, makes this, in a way, an exceptionally “realistic” comedy. It ends with weddings, but also with the fall of a larger-than-life character who is too sympathetic to be a proper villain. I read the Oxford World's Classics edition of this, which has fine notes, generous margins, readable font, and excellent introductory material. Which I only skimmed because, as always, I started with Marjorie Garber's wonderful chapter on the play in Shakespeare After All. All her analyses are good, but this one seemed to me particularly so. I know I wouldn't have enjoyed the play nearly so much without her insights, anyway. Also, I highly recommend the Arkangel recorded performance of this – it's just fantastic! I'm not a fan of Shakespeare's clowns, as a general rule, but David Tennant's “Lancelot” is irresistible, and the other actors are also marvelous.

[homeschoolmimzi · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I first read this play back in 9th grade. At the time I remember being struck w/certain parts of it though I missed a lot of references, and many somewhat bawdy double entendres went over my head. Re-reading it as an adult was a great idea, as I was able to appreciate the story more. And I found too, after awhile, that understanding Shakespeare's English became easier as I continued reading.

One of my favorite passages was Portia's speech in Act IV Scene I, where she speaks to Shylock,


The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptered sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show like God's
When mercy seasons justice.

I had to memorize this for my 9th grade Lit class and was surprised to see how much of it I still remember after all these years.
I'm having my 9th grader read this play now for her Lit class. I hope I can help her to appreciate this more than I did at her age ☺

[katieloucks · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

It was ok.

[browner56 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Shylock is a Jewish money-lender who faces the scorn and contempt of the Christian business community in 16th century Venice on a daily basis. Quite understandably, he seethes with anger over the anti-semitic slurs to which he is routinely subjected, but seizes the chance to get even when his arch-rival, the merchant Antonio, needs to borrow money. Shylock’s terms for the loan are simple: no interest will be charged (as per the Christian tradition against usury), but he will literally carve a pound of flesh from Antonio’s body if the principal repayment is even a day late. Of course, Antonio does miss that deadline and Shylock fully intends to carry out the contract’s sinister terms. However, the resourceful Portia—who has just married Antonio’s best friend Bassanio—steps into the legal dispute at the last moment, sparing Antonio’s life at the cost of everything that Shylock possesses or holds dear, including the religious faith to which he has been devoted his whole life. Antonio leaves the courtroom physically and financially intact—he does not even have to repay the loan—while Shylock exits a wholly broken man.Does the basic plot of The Merchant of Venice sound like the stuff of one of Shakespeare’s more rollicking comedies? If you think not, then we think alike. Indeed, I had a decidedly mixed reaction to this story, which I read rather than saw acted out on stage. On one hand, it is Shakespeare, so the story was briskly paced and the word play was occasionally brilliant (e.g., the time-honored expressions “pound of flesh,” “all that glisters is not gold,” and “the quality of mercy is not strained” appear in this play). However, I found it hard to root either for the alleged good guys—Antonio, Bassanio, Gratiano, Lorenzo—or against Shylock, who never really deserves anything that happens to him throughout the tale and is even betrayed in a remarkably callous manner by his own daughter, Jessica. The problem may well be that, in Shylock, the Immortal Bard created an intriguing and incredibly complex character when all he probably meant to do was provide some dramatic tension to get in the way of an otherwise silly love story. In fact, in this respect I am tempted to say that Shakespeare was hoisted by his own petard, but that would be a different play altogether.

[borrows0n0wants · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I read this a few years ago for an Intro to Shakespeare class. It was my favorite play we covered with the exception of The Tempest. My memory is a little fuzzy, but I do recall enjoying it and laughing out loud at several parts. Shakespeare's word play is wonderful. I also feel that whether you try to read this from an anti-Semitist point of view or choose to view Shylock as a sympathetic character, you will still find a lot of enjoyment in this. It is also interesting to think about law interpretation and the loop holes in the law and how they still exist today.Side note: I watched the 2004 version of this with Al Pacino and felt that it stayed very true to the heart of the play. 

[mrslee_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

A very interesting drama, it is well to watch many different performances to see the many nuances which can be ascribed to this play. From base racism and bigotry, to pathos and compassion. Was Shylock a caricature? Was he greedy and grasping, or was he maligned, persecuted and misunderstood? Lots of food for thought here.

[aliceanna-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Holds up quite well upon re-reading. Although I'm now too old to play Portia, I still love her. Shylock gets a bad rap, but that's zeitgeist for you. At least Shakespeare tries to give background for him and he's not just pure evil (for no reason).

[liveshipvivacia · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

If I could have given it less than one star, I would have. Perhaps I'm naive and perhaps I missed the point, but the blatant antisemitism in this piece made me want to fling the book bodily across the room. I understand that the characters within the play may typify certain elements, but as a whole, this was the most antisemitic, racist play I have ever read. Is there redeeming quality in looking at it through the lenses of what Shakespeare intended versus how his audience perceived it? I don't know, but the excerpts of Mein Kampf I read were less enraging than this.

[david.alfred.sarkies · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

To call this play unique would be a misnomer since Shakespeare was hardly original with the subject matter of his plays. I believe that the only play that came entirely from Shakespeare's imagination would have been The Tempest. Most of his other plays he had either borrowed from historical events or earlier works, usually both. There is even some suggestion that a number of plays (particularly Hamlet) were based on older plays, and Shakespeare basically compiled and rewrote them into the form that we have today. The reason that I suggest that The Merchant of Venice is unique is because it does not seem to follow the pattern that most of Shakespeare's other plays follow. But first a synopsis.The play is based around two plots, the first plot being a romance and the second being a claim for a debt to be paid. The main characters of this play are Antonio (a merchant), Shylok (a Jewish money lender), Portia (a beautiful princess), Jessica (Portia's friend and Shylock's daughter), Bassiano (a suitor to Portia and a friend of Antonio), and Lorenzo (the suitor to Jessica and a friend of Bassiano and Antonio). Portia has quite a lot of suitors, so to pick the right one she has three chests, one of gold, one of silver, and one of lead. Inside one of the chests (the lead one) is a image of her, and the suitors must chose the correct chest to win her hand in marriage. Pretty much all of the suitors pick the wrong chest, going for the gold and the silver, however when Bassiano comes (and Portia is in love with Bassiano, but everybody must play the game), he picks the correct chest, and they go off and get married. However, this is halfway through the play (and is odd because in most Shakespearian comedies, the marriage comes at the end).Getting an audience with Portia is not cheap though, so to do that Bassiano approaches his friend Antonio, but all of Antonio's money is tied up in investments, so to help out his friend, he attempts to borrow money from Shylock. The catch is (and there are always lots of catches in Shakespearian comedies) is that Shylock hates Antonio because, to put it simply, Antonio is an anti-semetic pig. So, seeing Antonio's desperation, he agrees to lend him the money with a pound of his flesh (in the region of the heart) as surety. Unfortunately for Antonio, disaster strikes and he pretty much loses all of his investments which leaves him with no money and a Jew banging on his door demanding payment.This is all resolved at court, and while it appears that all is lost, and Shylock refuses to show mercy, since he now has his enemy over a barrel, a doctor's apprentice and his servant enters (who turn out to be Portia and Jessica in disguise), who, through clever legal argument, point out that while the bond is solid and Antonio must give up his pound of flesh, the bond does not give any right to take any blood, and further, no Jew may spill a drop of Christian blood, on pain of death. So, the tables are turned, Antonio escapes his debt, and Shylock is punished.It would seem that the play should end here, however it doesn't: there is at least two more scenes afterward. In payment for their services Portia (in disguise) convinces Bassiano to give up a ring that he had promised Portia never to let go, and Jessica does the same with Lorenzo. When they return, they are then confronted by their respective ladies as to the location of the ring. This is Shakespearian comedy at its best, especially how both Lorenzo and Bassiano sweat over how, in such a short time, they have betrayed the trust of their loved ones.I am hesitant to say this, particularly since with a looking at a 16th Century play, that it appears to be about racism, and I will quote one of Shylock's lines below, but I find it difficult to conclude that it really is racist. Indeed, Shakespeare does make some comment on how despite their beliefs both Jews and Christians are still human, yet Shylock is still considered the antagonist, and it is his refusal to show mercy, even if he were to be paid 10 times what is owed, that causes us to lose all sympathy for him. Granted, the play does appear to be anti-semetic, but we must remember that this was what was happening at the time. I do not believe Shakespeare is deliberately targeting Jews here, and especially since it was illegal for Christians to lend money to Christians and charge interest, the only way people could obtain loans were through the Jews. In fact, the Jews were the bankers of the Middle Ages (though this medieval attitude must have changed early on in the Renaissance where the Medicis, a Christian family, were considered to be the founders of modern banking).What about women's liberation? Lets us consider this aspect of the play: Portia is a very strong willed and dominant character; she keeps her suitors at bay with a test that they may pass; she has demonstrated that she has superb rhetorical ability; she is incredibly knowledgeable; and incredibly mischievous; her trick with the ring pretty much has Bassiano wrapped around her finger - in a flurry of kind words, she binds him to a promise, and within a day, forces him to break that promise; She then forces Bassiano into submission through the use of guilt over how he not only broke a vow that he had made to her, but that a day had not even passed before he broke that vow. While it is true that women of the middle ages were not all beaten into submission, the actions and the ability of Portia is staggering. She is able to interact within the world of men just as well, or even better, than most dignified men could. I find Portia to be an amazing character, and considering the date of this play, to be somewhat ahead of her time, though we should remember that this was also written during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, a classic example of a woman doing a man's job, and doing it rather well at that. Maybe, just maybe, Portia represents Elizabeth in demonstrating that a woman can do just as well as any man in the world of men.To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else,it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, andhindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted mybargains, cooled my friends, heated mineenemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hathnot a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed withthe same food, hurt with the same weapons, subjectto the same diseases, healed by the same means,warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, asa Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poisonus, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we notrevenge? If we are like you in the rest, we willresemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christianwrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be byChristian example? Why, revenge. The villany youteach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but Iwill better the instruction.

[coach_of_alva · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

In which a charming and entertaining romantic comedy is intertwined with a very grim portrait of a wronged outcast who has lost the ability to forgive.

[tiffanyak_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This seems to essentially be Shakespeare's response to The Jew of Malta, so if you've read that, this will seem very familiar to you. However, the language used is far more memorable, the lead character more sympathetic, and the story shaped to fit a different genre. This means that it ends on a far less tragic note, and also that it secures its place in history as one of Shakespeare's masterpieces. Essentially, it is a story of failed revenge, love, and injustice. As to the edition itself, I found it to be greatly helpful in understanding the action in the play. It has a layout which places each page of the play opposite a page of notes, definitions, explanations, and other things needed to understand that page more thoroughly. While I didn't always need it, I was certainly glad to have it whenever I ran into a turn of language that was unfamiliar, and I definitely appreciated the scene-by-scene summaries. Really, if you want to or need to read Shakespeare, an edition such as this is really the way to go, especially until you get more accustomed to it.

[amerynth · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Had a tough time rating Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice." I actually found it to be one of Shakespeare's stronger stories and his frequently used disguise device works well and cleverly here. Portia is a pretty strong and clever female character, which I enjoyed all the more for its rarity amongst Shakespeare's works.The play was difficult to read, however, because of the anti-Semitic aspects that really permeate the text.

[mstrust · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Beautiful and wealthy Portia is looking for a husband, and Bassanio wants to try for her hand but he is too poor to present himself as a viable suitor. He turns to his best friend Antonio, who has several ships expected with cargo that will bring him more wealth. The two friends go to Shylock the moneylender for a loan, but Shylock uses their need to set up his revenge. Antonio has always taunted and demeaned the Jewish moneylender, so rather than contracting for property if Antonio defaults on the loan, Shylock demands a pound of the debtor's flesh.The speeches by Shylock are the most famous of this play and though he is overall portrayed as a cruel man who is openly hated by the others, including his own daughter, he is also given the opportunity to point out that his religion makes him no less human than a Christian. I would think modern audiences would see him as a more empathetic character than Antonio, whose cruelty is addressed with an admission that he has called Shylock a dog and spat on him in the past and is likely to do it in the future. The courtroom scene near the end is tense as Shylock demands payment.

[seabear_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Those hypocritical bastards! Once a comedy, now a tragedy for those of us who aren't anti-Semitic. Although given the global financial crisis, perhaps a comedy once more if you replace "the Jew" with "the banker".

[milti_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

It has been read and over-read for school till it has lost all its dramatic value for me. But the true fact of the matter is that Shylock is an everlasting character who will never erase himself from common memory.

[meditationesmartini · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

CHRIS-TIANS! CHRIS-TIANS! GOTTA GIVE IT UP FOR CHRIS-TIANS! EVERYTHING GOES GREAT FOR CHRIS-TIANS! There are, as we know, many unresolvable interpretative ourobori in this play--the anti-Semitism thing, the relationship of Antonio and Bassanio, the very vexed question of the Venetian oath, that false thing, and what yet makes Bassanio and Portia infinitely cold and clean and Shylock a quintessence of grime--I mean to say, better to rule one's house in the Ghetto than serve in Belmont, right? As Jessica will learn, to her sorrow? The fact that the passionate malice of the Italians is so much more terrifying, here, than the grim legalmindedness of the Jew? These are all interesting things, and this great play is chock-full of more cool thoughts like them--about capitalism, about youth sucking age dry like the New Testament does the Old, about the Prince of Morocco as a secret counterpoint to Shylock--the Semite prince, cartoonishly accipitrine, flourishing a scimitar-world of infinite princehood--versus the Semite moneylender, ever debased below his pecuniary value, from the people who had their princes taken away long ago. And you can get diverted and watch a smartass Hermione Granger type (In the context of Christian and post-Christian hatred, I use the word "progress" with infinite trepidation, but surely the fact that our generation's reincarnation of the bright spark who always has something up her sleeve is a Mudblood fighting Voldemort and his crew of wizard Nazis, and not an abjurer and defender and reinscriber of racial boundaries around the home, possibly that's a small good thing?) break a bitter old man and clear the road for wedding-ring hijinx--and you know that for the happy crew at the middle, somehow the bill for the uneasy edge that their ringplay has in that extraordinary final scene falls at Shylock's door too. You can do all that but when you stop just watching the sweet show and try to resolve something, close any one of the doors that Shakespeare so suggestively leaves open, you find yourself tying yourself in knots, and getting into some really dark places. Why? Because it doesn't matter how we arrange our interpretations; there is no version of this play where Shylock's not fucked from the beginning, because he's the villain and the groundlings want him to get a kick, and there's no version where he's not the villain--there never will be--why? Because he's the Jew. And suddenly it hits you--it hits generic Gentile me--why the representation of people like you as good and kind that the mainstream culture has always taken for granted is the most essential thing in the world. Because otherwise, on some level, from the earliest age, you're afraid that you're bad. And the rest of it proceeds inexorably outward from that fundamental trauma. Why does Antonio loathe Shylock? He's easy to loathe, because he's never had a role open to him that wasn't loathsome. Why does Shylock loathe Antonio? Because he's just as loathsome, only--roles again--nobody will ever see it, because he's inherited the snowy mantle of lion in winter. It's like how racism isn't wrong because those people we hate didn't have a choice about being hateful; that's not why; it's wrong because we didn't give them a choice. We made them hateful with our stories--and to the degree that they're hateful, it's no wonder, but for the dizzying degree that we've just revealed ourselves as hateful, there's no bond, no pound of flesh. We're just bastards.I saw Merchant the other night, and the dude who played Shylock didn't do this scene this way, but it came to me in the middle with an awful shiver and became, for me, this play's fearsome core: the speech? "Hath not a Jew hands?" Imagine Shylock, not defiant, not roaring, not cold as ice, not looking for pity, but gnawing his fingers, hitting himself in the head, throwing himself against the walls, saying "Is not a Jew bad--bad--BAD--just like a Christian? And will he not revenge, as a way of stopping himself from going home in the mirror and driving a toothpick into his face?" His defiance becomes his heroism, the refusal to make that traumatic break with himself. Antonio's not that strong, and I bet he goes to his guest room at Belmont and hears the young cavorting and looks at the lines on his face and does something horrible to himself. Every time Shylock walks out of that courtroom and we leave him for the winners, it's unforgivable, because behind the scenes somewhere there's the mutilated self, the violated body. Our great art shows us that body--but our greatest art makes us complicit in not wanting to see it, but being aware it's there. This is no happy ending, nor even a clean tragedian sleep of death. This is a bunch of damaged and undermined people walking away to sow the crimes of the future.

[bestinbrooklyn · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Yes, it is a great play, with a truly original plot, but what about the social statement? Is the theme of the book anti-semitic? Shylock's actions and demeanors could be seen as evidence of Shakespeare's possible dislike for jews. On the other hand, is the play more a lesson on how revenge, even if prompted by justified feelings of persecution and harassment, is not morally right? Maybe it is about the latter, but the play's language depicts the jewish stereotypes that have been used by anti-semites throughout history. Perhaps it is about both, and the language reserved for Shylock, his dead wife and Rebecca are intended only as a reflection of the period's socially inevitable disposition toward jews. Once again, Shakespeare leaves us with unanswered questions.

[bookomaniac-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

1596-7, zeer populair en controversieel; zeer nauwe structuur, Shylock is eerste rijpe figuurVeel proza, moeilijk leesbaar, vrij saai tot de figuur van Shylock ten tonele verschijnt (problematiek van het joodzijn, en van de woeker).Bekend: III,1 (p215): “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”Toch dubbelzinnig: zit vooral in met zijn verloren geld en juwelen, boven zijn dochter Jessica.Finale vanaf IV, thema van recht en rechtvaardigheid.

[hahnasay · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Its Shakespeare! What more do you want me to say. He's wonderful!

[anagarika · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This play was hilarious. I enjoyed it.

[ncgraham_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This was the play that always prompted the biggest reaction from me when, as a pint-sized, wannabe Shakespearean, I used to thumb through Charles and Mary Lamb’s Tales from Shakespeare. “What, he wants a pound of Antonio’s flesh?” I would think.—“Yuck!” Aside from the shock value, I couldn’t see why the play was considered one of Shakespeare’s best; Shylock seemed a rather drab villain, and I thought Portia an ugly name for a woman. But having read my old favorite Much Ado About Nothing this past Valentine’s Day (a very sappy thing to do, I know), I was determined to survey some of the Bard’s other plays. Two different friends whose tastes I trust named it as their favorite comedy and (in one case) favorite play, and this led me to pick it up, having never seen it performed on stage or screen.Baaaaaaaaaaad idea.I love Shakespeare, and I do think there are benefits to be derived from reading his plays and not only from seeing them performed, but doing the former without having first done the latter can make for difficult reading. I read the first act of Merchant in a single evening, but when I finished I realized that I had struggled through it, something that had not happened with Much Ado. However, I was determined not to give up, so I came up with and enacted a new, hard-hitting strategy. The Charles and Mary Lamb volume came back out—the paperback from all those years before—and when I resumed the play I began to mouth the words as I read them, getting a feel for the sound and rhythm. By these means I was able to get through it, and even greatly enjoy it.The merchant of the title is one Antonio, a prosperous but perhaps overgenerous businessman who lives amid the hustle and bustle of Venetian life. A young spendthrift friend, named Bassanio, asks for a loan of money so that he may go and woo the “richly left” Portia of Belmont (I.1.161*) in style. All of Antonio’s fortune is at sea, but he goes to the Jewish moneylender Shylock and asks him to take his bond—a loan of three thousand ducats for three months. For his usury the Jew demands no money, but simply a pound of Antonio’s flesh. He and Bassanio take this merely as a jest, thinking anyway that Antonio’s ships will have arrived before then, and Bassanio sets of for Belmont, while Shylock’s hate for Antonio is growing in his heart, and his plans for the merchant’s undoing becoming more and more a reality. Thus Shakespeare begins his interweaving of two basic plot lines—a “love” plot featuring Portia and Bassanio, and a “hate” plot featuring Shylock and Antonio. To give away much more would be to spoil it for those truly new to the play.Of course, it is a comedy, and so the reader expects a happy ending for at least some of the characters, and as far as that goes the play fits the genre. Otherwise it not what one typically thinks of as a comedy; very little of it is laugh-out-loud funny, and most of the humor found within these pages comes in the guise of wit or irony.But in its dramatic qualities the play is top drawer. Shylock truly is one of literature’s most fascinating characters. Like many Shakespearean baddies, he is self-admittedly a villain (III.1.66), but he commands our sympathy nevertheless. And I do not think this is simply because of our modern sensibilities, despite reports that the fall of a Jew might be a source of humor for an Elizabethan audience. He has been poorly treated by his fellow men, and learnt his villainy from this treatment, and so we must pity him, even as we feel horror at his response. The most likable character by far is Portia. “You will love Portia,” one of my youth directors predicted when she heard that I was reading this play, “because she is AWESOME!” And, indeed, she is—a fierce, independent woman who is nevertheless in love with Bassanio and will do anything to save the life of his friend. Her speech on mercy in the trial scene (IV.1) is truly the stuff of legend. The other characters are fairly dull, and Shylock’s daughter Jessica needs a good slap or two, but together Shylock and Portia sweep all before them, representing not only hate and love, but legalism and mercy. It is they who made me love this play, and it is they that will cause me to remember it and come back to it.* All line references come from The Complete Pelican Shakespeare.

[roxyite4life · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The Merchant of Venice is fraught with risk and sacrifice. Antonio risks his life so his dearest friend, Bassanio, may risk his chances with other suitors to woo the beautiful Portia. Portia risks being caught disguised as a man in order to save Antonio's life. Shylock's daughter, Jessica, sacrifices her religion and her relationship with her father so she may marry the christian, Lorenzo. Since Shylock is jewish, he disowns Jessica who has converted to christianity in order to marry Lorenzo. And, in the end, Shylock sacrifices his religion, loses acceptance of the jewish community, and loses all of his money in order to save his life. With such action going on, you would think the play is hard to follow, but it is probably one of the most understandable plays of Shakespeare. However, I had hoped it would have have proved more suspenseful. With that said, I would recommend this book to anyone wishing to start reading Shakespeare as this book would do well to ease you into Shakespeare's language and style of writing. It would also make a nice read for those interested in race relations during the Elizabethan era.

[kenzielynn75 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

The Merchant of Venice is a short story with a very basic plot, and one of little interest to me. Bassanio comes up with some crazy plan to pay Antonio back the money that he owes. However his plan backfires and Antonio is left to pay for Bassanio's mistakes. I found the story predictable and hard to get into. It isn't hard to follow, but you'll miss what little humor it has if you aren't well read in Shakespearean liturature. I definately would not include this with any of Shakespeare's more renowned plays.

[alishabailey · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

[The Merchant of Venice] is a story of love, honor, pride, and loyalty all wrapped up in one. You will experience everthing from a Jew's daughter betraying him by marrying a Christian, Bassanio putting a pound of his friend's flesh on the line to go court a woman, Bassanio finding and marrying the love of his life, Shylock almost getting a pound of flesh from Antonio, Portia and Nerrisa portraying men to save Antonio, and trick their men into giving up their rings. There is action in every page each and every character will grab your attention and hold it. I would recommend this book to anyone who can understand Shakespearean language, or who is willing to try. As for myself, I have a hard time figuring out what is going on. Honestly, I didn't understand this story until I watched the movie, and that film pulled everything together for me. I don't think this is one of Shakespeare's best plays therefore I give it 2 stars.

[ethanbis · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The Merchant of Venice, by William Shakespeare, starts out with Antonio wondering why he is so sad. His best friend Bassanio then tells him that he is in love and needs to borrow money in order to court Portia. With all of his ships away at sea, Antonio has to borrow money from his enemy, Shylock. Shylock agrees to lend money to Antonio and they make a deal. If Antonio hasn't paid Shylock in 3 months the Shylock could cut off a pound of flesh; Antonio agrees. Bassanio eventually marries Potia, but Antonio doesn't repay Shylock within 3 months. If you want to find out what happened to Antonio, you'll have to read the book. I'm not a big Shakespeare fan, because it takes me a while to figure out what he is trying to say. The Merchant of Venice wasn't my favorite of his books, but overall it was pretty good. You never know what happens next in The Merchant of Venice. I would recommend it to any Shakespeare fan or to someone who just wants a good book to read.

[brianstone_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The Merchant of Venice is about a man named Antonio who is sad at the beginning of the play for no reason, "In sooth, I know not why I am sad; It wearies me; you say it wearies you; But how I caught it, found it, or came by it, What stuff 'tis made of, whereof it is born, I am to learn; And such a want-wit sadness makes of me, That I have much ado to know myself." (Act I Scene I). Antonio goes through the novel trying to fix his sadness. Then he finds out that he is sad because he misses his youth. He misses being young so he makes friends with a young man named Bassanio. Bassanio helps Antonio feel young and so does the rest of his friends. Then Bassanio sees Portia and falls in love. Bassanio goes to Antonio for money but all of Antonio's money is at see so they borrow from Shylock, the Jew.This story is full of dramatic scenes like Shylock wanting his bond, "When it is paid according to thee tenor. It dothbappear you are a worthy judge; You know the law, your exposition Hath been most sound; I charge you by the law, Whereof you are a well-deserving pillar, Proceed to judgment: by my soul I swear There is no power in the tongue of man to alter me: I stay here on my bond." (Act IV Scene I), or like Bassanio giving his ring that was given to him by his wife to the doctor who helped the trial, who was actually Portia, his wife.I personally didn't enjoy the book because I couldn't comprehend what Shakespeare was writing. I gave this book three and a half stars out of five stars. I recommend this book for high school honors classes only since Shakespeare has a hard language to understand.

[joshberg · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I read Merchant exactly 25 years ago and recently had the opportunity to read it again. I mostly enjoyed the play and was all set to give a solid four-star rating, when that foolish final scene left a bad taste in my mouth. After the profound pathos of Shylock's defeat, the silly-at-best conventions of Shakespearean comedy make for a particularly discordant ending.