| Can I Come Look At These Items? | | This online store is in association with Amazon.com, so these great, high-qualiy products will come from their warehouse or from other partners. Thanks for shopping! |
|
|
|
The Merchant of Venice (Folger Shakespeare Library) | 
 enlarge | Author: William Shakespeare
Publisher: Washington Square Press
Category: Book
List Price: $5.99
Buy New: $1.82
You Save: $4.17 (70%)
New (44) Used (99) Collectible (7) from $1.27
Avg. Customer Rating:  12 reviews
Sales Rank: 2966
Media: Mass Market Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 288
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.3
Dimensions (in): 6.7 x 4.1 x 1
ISBN: 0743477561
Dewey Decimal Number: 822.33
EAN: 9780743477567
ASIN: 0743477561
Publication Date: January 1, 2004
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: 100% Brand New! - Ships Today! Identical to Amazon's book in every way. Flawless! Not a cheap Remainder or Book Club Copy! *We recommend Expedited Shipping option for much faster mail delivery
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Folger Shakespeare LibraryThe world's leading center for Shakespeare studies Each edition includes: • Freshly edited text based on the best early printed version of the play • Full explanatory notes conveniently placed on pages facing the text of the play • Scene-by-scene plot summaries • A key to famous lines and phrases • An introduction to reading Shakespeare's language • An essay by an outstanding scholar providing a modern perspective on the play • Illustrations from the Folger Shakespeare Library's vast holdings of rare books Essay by Alexander Leggatt The Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., is home to the world's largest collection of Shakespeare's printed works, and a magnet for Shakespeare scholars from around the globe. In addition to exhibitions open to the public throughout the year, the Folger offers a full calendar of performances and programs.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 7 more reviews...
A play about racism or business ethics? June 23, 2008
Most reviewers focus on the issue of religion - Shylock as a Jew - but fail to look past the issues of faith and consider the discussion of business ethics in "The Merchant of Venice".
I won't go into the racism and religions arguments because I have nothing new to say on those subjects, and they have been done to death by everyone from high school freshmen to PhD candidates.
As much as any other theme, greed and impact of greed on business are themes that don't get the consideration in this play. In the era of the collapse of the "Sub-Prime Lending Market" and all the related scams, scandals, and tragedies, and Enron, and the impending collapse of several commodities markets, the theme of greed is more relevant than ever. "Oh my daughter, oh my ducats" has a familiar ring as realtors wring their hands that their properties can only be sold at a loss due to their own thoughtless avarice. As Shylock demanded the pound of flesh he was owned, mortgage firms foreclosing on properties where the buyer was encouraged to lie on the application has familiar feel to it.
"Merchant of Venice" has comedy, and has several other themes, but greed is the least discussed, and has the air of the elephant at a cocktail party that everyone is too polite to mention. The play was written in a time when people would fund military ships in order to share in the loot and salvage the ship brought back. From this play alone, you could make the case that Shakespeare was the first Socialist, the first person to openly question the business ethics and practices of his time. By setting the play in Venice and making the personification of Greed a Jew, he gently deflects the audience to the real statement he's trying to make.
Aside from the possible political message, this is quite a play. The characters are lively and timeless as all the best of the Bard, and the themes of romance, wayward children, and justice are as timely and thought provoking now as when they were written.
Excellent and complex play with as much drama and social criticism as comedy.
E.M. Van Court
 Remembering history March 24, 2008
_Merchant_ is a hard play to swallow -- brilliantly written and scathing in content. One worries about the futures of all the characters, most of whom are so flawed as to inspire only pity for their respective beloveds. The deus ex machina ending, in which Portia conjures happiness all around out of thin air -- except, of course, for Shylock, is merely bewildering.
Yet _Merchant_ should not be forgotten. One gets the impression that Shakespeare *wanted* his audience to be uncomfortable with some of the horrible prejudices depicted, and one definitely feels challenged. In addition, the extent to which we have moved on from the anti-Semitism so apparently cavalierly brandished in this 'comedy' leaves us with the responsibility to remember and be aware of prejudices that could be recalled to life, given the wrong stimuli.
I bought my Kindle edition for a "Shakespeare Sundae" dessert + reading, and was very pleased with its formatting and readability. The price is right, too.
An Indictment of Both Religions? November 15, 2007
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
One cannot read Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice without realizing the significance that religion takes in the play, specifically the portrayal of the Jewish and Christian characters. When we first encounter the play's principal Jew, Shylock, we can only feel resentment towards him for the way he carries himself and conducts his business. Then, when first exposed to the play's principal Christian characters--Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia--the audience likely feels sympathetic towards them because of their unfortunate run-ins with the villainous Shylock. But I wonder if this is a truly accurate reading of the play. It appears that critics are divided on whether Shakespeare was further advancing anti-Semitism existent at the time by depicting Shylock in denigrating stereotypes throughout the play or whether he was actually condemning anti-Semitic behavior by turning Shylock into a sympathetic figure by the play's end. It is my contention that Shakespeare is merely reflecting societal norms at the time as he indicts religion altogether.
Though we cannot forget Shylock's appeal to humanity in his "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech, nor Portia's appeal for mercy at the court trial, there is far too much evidence of misdeeds and hypocrisy by all of these characters to think Shakespeare is "picking sides" in this battle of religions. Shylock's greed and need for revenge are certainly damning portrayals of his faith given how religious he claims to be. But given the "holier-than-thou" attitude's of Venice's Christians and their hypocritical actions to the contrary of their religion, it is clear to me Shakespeare has a major problem with Christians who "talk the talk" but do not "walk the walk." I will discuss the villainous representation of Shylock, then analyze the hypocrisy of the play's primary Christian characters and will question if these Christians embody the righteous example of which they speak.
The portrayal of Shylock is paramount throughout the play, mainly because we are torn between disliking him for his cruelty on one hand and empathizing with him because of the abuse he suffers on the other. When Shylock enters the play in the Act 1, Bassanio is trying to get a loan from him using Antonio's credit because he needs a large sum of money so he can appropriately woo Portia. There is certainly no denying Shylock's passion for accumulating wealth. The other characters frequently comment on Shylock's greed throughout the play, and he even tells his daughter that he dreams about moneybags. Shylock suffers ridicule from the Christian community because he charges high interest rates on loans, but also because he is a Jew, comparable to a dog or the devil in their eyes. As Shylock considers the loan, he seems more interested in having Antonio bound to him than with the loan itself, and we soon learn of Antonio and Shylock's mutual resentment. Shylock is hesitant to help Antonio out because Antonio has hurt his own business dealings in the past by lending money at no charge, but also because he is a Christian. The evidence of Shylock's greed continues to mount. In Act 2, Solanio describes "the dog Jew" running through the streets of Venice and crying more earnestly for his lost ducats than for his lost daughter (who has ended their relationship, married a Christian and converted to Christianity, further enraging her estranged father).
Beginning in Act 3 and continuing into the first parts of Act 4, Shylock repeats statements like "I will have my bond"--the dubious "pound of flesh" from Antonio's body. Shylock's repetitions of his claim turn into a death chant of sorts for Antonio since he is now unable repay the loan. When asked what he plans to do with Antonio's piece of flesh since it's obviously worthless to him Shylock replies, "To bait fish withal...if it will feed nothing else it will feed my revenge" (Act 3, Scene 1, lines 45-46). We can now see Shylock eagerly awaiting his chance to kill Antonio and get his symbolic revenge on all the town's Christians, whom he despises.
Despite Portia's famed speech at the dramatic trial in Act 4, in which she lectures about Christian goodness and "the quality of mercy," Shylock refuses to show Antonio mercy. He claims he "craves the law" (Scene 1, line 203) and will not be merciful and forgiving to Antonio, and no one can change his mind. All of these incidents are constant reinforcements of Shylock's bitterness and cold-heartedness, which has been shown throughout the play, and which are clearly not in line with the virtuous nature of Judaism.
Of course we know that there is an unexpected change of events about to happen to Shylock. Instead of having his bond, we find that Shylock's bond with Antonio is impossible to recover since he may not shed a drop of Antonio's Christian blood in the process. Portia then orders Shylock's property seized and "mercifully" allows him to convert to Christianity rather being executed for attempting to take the life of a fellow Venetian, seemingly "delivering" him from his Jewishness. But up until Shylock's sentencing, we might be somewhat content with the depictions of the evil Jew and the righteous Christians. But as we examine Act 4 (and the entire play) more closely, we are forced to recognize that perhaps Shylock is actually a victim of the hypocritical Christian society in which he lives. Being able to read this play in a post-Holocaust and post-Civil Rights Movement world, we cannot help but have some empathy towards Shylock for the way he is treated, though clearly he is not a very virtuous man in his own right.
To analyze Christian hypocrisy in this play, it is necessary to go back to Portia's dramatic speech given at the trial, discussed previously. Portia preaches about the blessings of showing mercy, almost playing the role of a preacher. But if we retrace her steps back to Act 1, we hear Portia confessing to Christian hypocrisy. "Portia alludes to the familiar commonplace of the breach between Christian precept and practice" (Hassel, 117). This assertion comes from the following passage spoken by Portia:
"If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches, and poor men's cottages princes' palaces. It is a good divine that follows his own instructions. I can easier teach twenty that were good to be done than to be one of the twenty to follow mine own teaching" (Act 1, Scene 2, lines 11-15).
The primary Christian characters of this play are representative of the people living at the time. Antonio, the merchant of Venice himself, has a great reputation among his fellow Christians who see him as a righteous and self-sacrificing citizen and friend. His bigotry towards Jews is not frowned upon because all of the others share his belief. Behind Shylock's back, Antonio ridicules him as a moneylender, but then enters into a loan agreement with him anyway. Antonio shows no mercy to Shylock when Portia pronounces his sentence. If Antonio were a genuine Christian, would he not have humbly accepted his acquittal then tried to reconcile his differences with Shylock? Instead, Antonio agrees to take half of Shylock's possessions without objection, thus eliminating his main business rival. These actions (along with Antonio's berating of Shylock) are not of Christian compassion and mercy but of selfishness and religious hypocrisy.
Now I briefly turn to Bassanio. Bassanio is portrayed as a bit of a playboy--squandering all he has, refusing to work and willing to beg for financial assistance. He is more than willing to marry Portia for financial gain. He certainly has a tendency toward materialism and consumption, which are not Christian values. Although Bassanio does not really victimize Shylock in the same way the others do, his lifestyle does tarnish the religious credibility of the Christian community.
Now I turn to Portia, who embodies this hypocritical Christian nature and does not practice what she preaches. We are clued in to her racism as she complains about one of her suitors for marriage, the dark-skinned Prince from Morocco. Portia makes the comment "If he have the condition of a saint and the complexion of a devil, I had rather he should shrive me than wive me" (Act 1, Scene 2, line 33). "Portia knows it is a sin to be a mocker, but she mocks her suitors anyway" (Hassel, 114). Portia instead settles for the gold-digging Bassanio.
Although Portia's "quality of mercy" speech sounds like a wonderful description of Christian values, it is really an ironic display of Christian talking points versus actual practice. As I mentioned earlier, Portia's words do not correlate with her deeds. She tricks Shylock in this scene, first by disguising her character, then by turning the perceived law against him, leaving him a shell of his former self while enriching her friends. Shylock's life is completely ruined and she makes an even bigger mockery of his religion. Portia appears spiteful, not compassionate, and certainly does not come off as a merciful Christian.
Though Shakespeare is a tough read for me, I think I finally came to an understanding about what this play was really trying to convey. At first glance, you find yourself hating Shylock and admiring Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia. Later, you find yourself empathizing with Shylock because of the hypocrisy of the Christian characters. While the critics have argued it both ways, I truly feel that Shakespeare is merely commenting on society as he then saw it, which turns out to be a strong indictment of both religions--or at least how their virtues are carried out by their followers.
Merchant of Venice by Wm. Shakespeare November 15, 2007
It's one of Shakespeare's best. I thought the Folger Folio people were a little full of themselves. I mean 3 different reviews of their projects (which are formidable) is a little excessive.
Much more than meets the eye June 1, 2007
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
What exactly was Shakespeare attempting with The Merchant of Venice? Was Shakespeare anti-Semitic? Does the play promote anti-Semitism? What was Shakespeare's purpose in writing such a work?
As the play opens, the eponymous Antonio's dearest friend Bassanio laments his need of cash in order to seek the hand of Portia, the heiress of a noble Venetian family. Antonio is depressed, but it is only as the play progresses that we come to guess the reason for his depression: the marriage of this dear friend will, as such events always do, change the nature of their friendship and make it less intimate. As Antonio shows no other romantic interest in the play, and is alone and lonely, this depression possibly suggests that Antonio is homosexual.
But how would the cash enable Bassanio to engage in this pursuit? In fact we never learn precisely why the money is needed. There seems to be some kind of wealth or social class requirement for playing the game whose prize is Portia's hand and Bassanio needs to purchase the trappings that would, meretriciously, enable him to appear a member of the aristocracy.
As a successful merchant, Antonio is in a position to provide his friend with the desired funds. He doesn't have the cash on hand, however, as his wealth is tied up in his trading fleet at sea. But this fleet provides collateral, and the Jewish moneylender Shylock has access to the ready cash from his own store and from that of his friend and fellow Jew and moneylender, Tubal. But why should Shylock entertain a request from Antonio, a Christian who has reviled him and spat on him in the most public space in Venice for being a Jew, a public humiliation of the most egregious sort, as well as sadistically maligned him in a number of other ways, and now touts his moral superiority by noting that he lends to his own friends without interest. Responding to Antonio's sneering arrogance, Shylock offers to lend the money at no interest -- but demands an awful penalty should the borrower default -- the famous pound of flesh. And why should he not, in the unlikely event of Antonio's default, revenge himself?
Meanwhile, Antonio's and Bassanio's friends help their friend Lorenzo assist his lover Jessica, Shylock's daughter, in running away from her father's home, which she does, stealing a substantial sum in jewelry, including Shylock's most treasured possession, his late wife's gift to him.
Bassanio passes the test of the three boxes and wins the beautiful Portia's hand.
Antonio's ships are reported lost at sea and, defaulting, he is subject to the exulting Shylock's revenge. Shylock proceeds to have the default ajudicated, but the judge fails to appear. Portia arrives, dressed as the out-of-town judge whose fairness and erudition are well-known, and proceeds to play the unsuspecting Shylock with all of Antonio's contempt, to the delight of the vindictive Jew-hater Gratiano, depriving Shylock of his revenge. The "court" relieves Shylock of half his wealth and requires him to convert to Christianity. Antonio, who defaults, pays no penalty, and in the end his ships all complete their voyages to his substantial gain.
In this play, Shakespeare both mirrors the Jew-hatred of his contemporary society and, interestingly, portrays the implicitly parallel society of Venice and its Christian characters with an undeniable condemnation hidden beneath a scrim of identification: the sneering supercilious Antonio who claims the mantle of the generous Christian; the deceiver Bassanio, who borrows a lot of money with which to appear wealthy in order to deceive his future wife; the gratuitously vicious racist, Gratiano; Shylock's daughter and future Christian Jessica, who steals from her father his most intimate keepsake; the angelic aristocrat Portia who mendaciously assumes the identity of a trusted judge and turns the law on its head for the benefit of her husband's best friend and engages in some sadistic Jew-savaging herself to the delight of all the non-Jews present (and apparently Shakespeare imagined that the audience would enjoy it as well).
Shakespeare appears to be playing both sides of the coin here, both playing to popular Jew-hating, and creating a plot which not only exposes the amorality of the Christians but also depicts Shylock as a sometimes truly sympathetic character.
The play's structure is very familiar and guaranteed to please. Evil character plots to destroy innocent protagonist, but with the help of friends the evil character is outsmarted or outmaneuvered and gets his comeuppance, while the good people live happily ever after. Shakespeare though has created a curious drama indeed. The good folks are really quite distasteful characters, though Shakespeare puts beautiful words in their mouths. And the "villain" is in fact much more than an evil stereotype. Shylock is no paragon of decency, but he is the most fully realized human being in the play and commands the careful reader's or auditor's sympathy.
Shakespeare portrayed the Christian Venetians as corrupt characters while on the surface presenting them as the sympathetic actors in a more or less conventional drama of good Christians and bad Jews. A recent book bringing together current research on the life of Shakespeare notes that the most likely identity of the "Dark Lady" to whom Shakespeare wrote a number of passionate sonnets was a Jewish woman. This book (Shakespeare, by Michael Wood) notes that Shakespeare worked in a part of London in which he must have seen Jews frequently. Wood also notes that this play was written quickly at the time of Shakespeare's liaison with the Dark Lady. Interestingly, while Shakespeare was certainly aware that he was portraying the Christian characters as corrupt, he was also treating them, as the "good guys". He was playing a very strange game, both sympathizing with the Jew Shylock, contemning, in a less than explicit manner, the Christian characters, and at the same time portraying Shylock as the evil Jew and the Christians as the beneficent characters he expected his audience to identify with.
The case can be made that, far from producing an anti-Semitic play, Shakespeare wrote a play that, while pandering to the anti-Semitic prejudices of his audience, condemns the hypocritical ethically-compromised Jew-haters of Venice, and, by extension, London.
|
|
|
| |
News 
