Headscratchers / The Merchant of Venice

• Several of Antonio's friends recognize him for his generosity. It is said that he has on several occasions lent or given money to friends and neighbors, particularly those who have found themselves debtors to Shylock and his colleagues. So, why exactly does Antonio need to go to Shylock in the first place? Is there nobody in his community that would be able and/or willing to help him out?
  • One theory (just putting this out there): Antonio does not feel comfortable asking his friends for assistance, whether or not he has done anything to earn their respect or their friendship. He would rather go to a career moneylender, despite his disdain towards them, simply because he will not have to plead or justify himself.
  • Evidently, there isn't. Maybe Shylock's method of making an honest profit for yourself is more secure than relying on "friends" to whom you've been overly-generous. Ayn Rand wouldn't be surprised.
  • He and his friends are merchants so they'll often have their money tied up in investments and not currently available.
• Okay, this is kind of silly to be the only thing that bugged at a cursory glance: I get the whole "you can have his flesh but can't take any blood" deal, but didn't anyone realize that by way of a process similar to flaying you can extract a pound of flesh... after an untold number of weeks/months/years. It would be slow and painful, but possible until the very second that the accuracy of the knife is (inadvertently?) compromised. Sorry if I give anyone nightmares.
  • Shylock would have responded to your suggestion with "It is not in the bond.", meaning that he believed he didn't have any obligation to slowly skin Antonio over the course of months to get his pound of flesh just to avoid shedding blood. Remember the good and learned doctor "Balthazar" suggested Shylock provide a surgeon to stop the bleeding, which he declined to do. He wasn't interested in doing anything other than hacking off a chunk of Antonio's chest right then and there. He held the opinion that since Antonio agreed to the bond, this freed Shylock from being subject to any kind of punishment because the death would be incidental. I'll paraphrase Balthazar's judgment of Shylock: "You plotted and prepared to inflict a wound on a man which you knew would be fatal without any kind of medical treatment and you refused to take steps to provide such treatment to prevent his death. You did this in full public view in a court of law in front of the Duke of Venice himself, so there isn't even a need to hold a trial for you. You are guilty of attempted murder, and you are a very very stupid man."
  • It was very much a Literal Genie interpretation of the contract: A pound of flesh from the chest, to which the stipulation of "without drawing a drop of blood" is added. Sure, Shylock can take his chances skinning him, but with a very hostile crowd and magistrate in view, would he really take the chance?
  • Alternately, Shylock was screwed as soon as he tried to go to court in the city where the word "ghetto" comes from (it was the part of Venice where Jews were forced to live in). Ain't no way a Christian court would let a Jew win over a Christian
    • Believe it or not, Venice (being a trade center) was fairly cosmopolitan and hands-off regarding religion. Shakespeare's audience would have seen it as downright decadent. If Shylock doesn't have any chance to win the lawsuit, there's no tension and no plot.
• Why is it that if you choose the wrong casket you can't ever get married? What sort of person would come up with a condition like that and who would even willingly go along with it?
  • Portia's father wanted to make sure that any suitor for his daughter would be really committed. They would be risking their entire future happiness on the gamble — hence, "Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath." It's like something straight out of a fairy tale (well, in a fairy tale the suitor would be just as likely to lose his head if he failed!), which is admittedly at odds with the rest of the play. For what it's worth, I like to think that after Portia married Bassanio, she sent messages to her former suitors telling them that she released them from their promise.
  • Isn't it just if you choose the wrong casket, you can't marry Portia? And once you've chosen wrongly, you're forbidden from speaking about which casket you picked to anyone else?
    • The Prince of Morocco definitely mentions not marrying at all if (and when) he picks the wrong casket, but maybe that was just his own little extra bit of pressure to try and choose the right one and doesn't apply to the others. If it does apply to everyone, it's still not really a big deal since there's no one necessarily keeping an eye on them to make sure they keep that part of the promise. I'm sure most of them would forget about it in a few years anyway.
• Is it really a Broken Aesop that Portia argues for the superiority of mercy and then brings the book down on Shylock? I'd see it as more of an Original Position Fallacy or a Secret Test of Character which Shylock fails. Shylock is thinking only in terms of what the judgment will bind Antonio to, failing to see how it binds him. Portia, who has already realized the flaw in the conflict, tries to get Shylock to accept a more generous interpretation of the rules — which wouldn't bind him so tightly — but all he sees is an attempt to rescue Antonio. And notice that it's not until he won't give Antonio so much as a bandage (it's not in the bond) that Portia finally springs the trap. Shylock is given every opportunity to show even a hint of kindness before Portia decides mercy would be wasted on the merciless.

---