"Out On Thee, Seeming!"

Through out Much Ado About Nothing characters miscommunicate and misunderstand each other, sometimes through deception.  In several scenes, characters confuse the appearance of things and their reality.  In Act 4, Scene 1, for example Claudio arrives at his wedding to Hero believing that she is lewd (since she appeared to be so when Borachio seduced Margaret) when in fact she is chaste.  Confused by appearances he denounces her appearance as a chaste woman at her wedding as a false appearance.  He states:

     Out of thee, seeming! I will write against it.
     You seem to me as Dian in her orb,
     As chaste as is the bud ere it be blown.
     But you are more intemperate in your blood
     Than Venus, or those pampered animals
     That rage in savage sensuality (4.1.57-62)

Thus he curses false appearances, not realizing that he himself is still confounded by false appearances.  This mistake leads to the disruption of his wedding and the ill health of his would-be bride.  Yet on the other hand, deception and misunderstanding also leads to Beatrice and Benedick's union and the reconciliation of Hero and Claudio at the end.  What is the play telling us about communication or miscommunication?  About truth and deception?  About appearance and reality?

"A Kind of Merry War"

In the first scene on Much Ado About Nothing Leonato describes the relationship between his niece Beatrice and Benedick as "a kind of merry war . . . They never meet but there's a skirmish of wit between them"(1.1.59-62).  Later in the play Benedick himself comments on his feelings about Beatrice, " . . . I stood like a man at a mark with a whole army shooting at me. She speaks poniards and every word stabs" (2.1.242-5). These metaphors and similes suggest a comparison between war and love -- or at least the relationship between the sexes (or at least Benedick and Beatrice's relationship). What do war and love have in common?  What is the goal or purpose for each?  What is the method?  What is the value?  Does this comparison provide an optimistic take on the eventual union of Beatrice and Benedick -- or suggest something more problematic?

"There is No Vice So Simple But Assumes / Some Mark of Virtue"

As Bassanio is resolving the puzzle of the caskets, he reasons based on the distinction between appearance and reality.  He observes that:

     So may the outward shows be least themselves;
     The world is still deceived with ornament. . . .
     There is no vice so simple but assumes
     Some mark of virtue on his outward parts  (3.2.75-6; 83-4).

When he finally chooses the lead casket, he argues that:

     Thus ornament is but the guiled shore
     To a most dangerous sea, the beauteous scarf
     Veiling an Indian beauty; in a word,
     The seeming truth which cunning times put on
     To entrap the wisest                            (3.2. 99-103).    

In other words it appears as if Bassanio is arguing that appearances are often false, immoral and dangerous.   Yet in the trial of the contract of the pound of flesh, Portia, in disguise as a doctor, saves Antonio from death.   While her appearance is surely false in her case, it is necessary to prevent a just but tragic outcome. Is Bassanio's observation about appearances compatible with Portia's deceptive actions?  Is there a difference of opinion about appearances between these two characters?  Is there a debate in this play about the morality and importance of appearances and deception?

Squaring the Circle: The Role of the Trials

The Merchant of Venice presents a world in conflict in which the characters need to navigate between opposing and conflicting values.  They need to attend to their romantic interests as well as their financial and legal obligations, to balance justice and mercy, to juggle their friends and their lovers. Each of the three trials in the play (the trial of the caskets, the trial of the contract of the pound of flesh and the trial of the rings)  is an attempt to resolve these dilemmas.  Each trial confronts a seemingly irresoluble conflict -- only to miraculously solve the problem.  In the world of comedy, we can have our cake and eat it, too.

Choose ONE of the trials.  What are the values at stake?  How is the conflict resolved?  What is this trial telling us the nature of these values?  Are they really conflicting?  Is there a strategy to resolve the problem?  Or is it only in the never, never land of the play that we can ever hope to square the circle?

Shylock: Villain or Victim?

The character of Shylock has fascinated actors, audiences and scholars for generations.  On the one hand he exhibits stereotypical characteristics of the villainous "Jew": he is obsessed with money, he is an implacable enemy of his Christian neighbors, and he insists on following the law even when common sense dictates mercy and pity.  On the other hand he is shown to be himself the victim of the prejudice and cruelty of his Christian  neighbors.  No better evidence for Shylock's victimhood and the plays portrayal of his humanity is his speech from Act 3, Scene 5.  As his Christian neighbors question his pursuing his rights in taking a pound of Antonio's flesh, Shylock retorts:

     I am a Jew.  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? (3. 1. 57-66).

What do you think?  From your reading of the play is Shylock supposed to be a villain or victim (or perhaps a bit of both)?  Is he a  Jewish stereotype or a fully developed character that happens to be Jewish or somewhere in between?  What is your take on the character of Shylock?

"In truth I know it is a sin to be a mocker": Comedy, Mockery and the Outsider

In Act 1, Scene 2 of  The Merchant of Venice Portia complains about her potential suitors to Nerissa.  Although she admits that "In truth I know it is a sin to be a mocker"(1.2.57), that admission doesn't prevent her mocking the foibles of her suitors to great comic effect. Her suitors are all foreign-born outsiders who fail to conform to the proper etiquette and standards of Belmont (and presumably to Shakespeare's audience as well).  One way Shakespeare's comedy operates seems to be to expose and satirize the outsider (not unlike some television sitcoms like The Big Bang Theory that satirizes geeks, another outside group)

What about the other outsiders in this play such as Morocco, Shylock and perhaps even Portia herself?  Are they too held up to ridicule for refusing to conform to conventional norms?  Are they merely stereotypical figures (the Black African, the Jew, the Single Woman) that serve as the butt of the play's jokes?  Or is there something else going on?  Do these characters have a different role in the play?  Do they rise above being a stereotype?

Amor Vincit Omnia ?

In Act 1, Scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice Bassanio finds himself in trouble: He is in debt up to his ears and he needs to escape his creditors.  His plan is to ask the person whom he owes the most to lend him even more money for a new "get rich quick" scheme.  As he explains to Antonio:

                              But my chief care
     Is to come fairly off from the great debts
     Wherein my time, something too prodigal,
     Hath left me gaged.  To you, Antonio,
     I owe the most in money and in love,
     And from your love I have a warranty
     To unburden all my plots and purposes
     How to get clear of all the debts I owe. . .
     I owe you much, and, like a willful youth,
     That which I owe is lost.  But if you please
     To shoot another arrow the self way
     Which you did shoot the first, I do not doubt,
     As I will watch the aim, or to find both
     Or bring your latter hazard back again,
     And thankfully rest debtor for the first. (1.1.134-41;153-9)

Notice how Bassanio characters his relationship to Antonio.  They have a bond of "money" and "love" and their interaction is both affectionate and financial.  This interconnection of money and love further emerges when Bassanio revels his scheme to erase his debts: to marry Portia and her fortune.

Is Bassanio "in love" with Portia or is he just "using" her to pay his debts?  Is he really a friend of Antonio or just his "gravy train"?  Or is it more complicated?  What is this play saying about the values of money and love?  Are the two opposing values?  Is one more important than the other?  Does, as the saying goes, "love conquer all"?