Through the centuries, The Merchant of Venice has been one of Shakespeare’s most frequently performed plays; yet it has generally been considered highly problematic, and interpretations both on stage and in criticism have varied perhaps more widely than in the case of any other work by Shakespeare. Differences of interpretation have usually turned on the character of the Jewish moneylender Shylock, and on what happens to him in the justly famous trial scene: Shylock has been seen as everything from an unalloyed villain to a kind of tragic hero, and the play at large as everything from an exercise in anti-Semitism to a denunciation thereof. But to get to grips with the ambiguity of Shylock himself and of the moment (both celebrated and notorious) when Portia turns the tables on him, we will need to attend to the ambiguity of the play more widely, and to the widely divergent interpretations which its characters make of one another.
In order to help us on our way, we shall begin by thinking about the various possible meanings of justice, about the expectations of justice we may bring to a play, and about the ways and reasons a particular play might fulfill or frustrate such expectations. Three questions to which we shall give particular attention are the following. Firstly, what kind of justice might we expect to see in a comedy (as opposed to a tragedy or a history play, for example), and how does The Merchant of Venice exploit and revise those expectations? Secondly, what, in the world of the play, is the relationship between justice and political authority? Do they properly go hand in hand or are they in some sense intrinsically at odds? Thirdly, what bearing do Christian ideas of justice have on the play? Are they represented as supplying answers, or as themselves being thrown into question?
The course will involve extensive close reading of the set text, so students must bring a copy with them to every class, and should also become as familiar as possible with the play in advance.
