SparkNotes: The Merchant of Venice: Character List The Merchant of Venice Plot Overview Analysis of Major Characters Shylock - A Jewish moneylender in Venice. Angered by his mistreatment at the hands of Venice’s Christians, particularly Antonio, Shylock schemes to eke out his revenge by ruthlessly demanding as payment a pound of Antonio’s flesh. Although seen by the rest of the play’s characters as an inhuman monster, Shylock at times diverges from stereotype and reveals himself to be quite human. These contradictions, and his eloquent expressions of hatred, have earned Shylock a place as one of Shakespeare’s most memorable characters. Read an in-depth analysis of Shylock. Portia - A wealthy heiress from Belmont. Portia’s beauty is matched only by her intelligence. Bound by a clause in her father’s will that forces her to marry whichever suitor chooses correctly among three caskets, Portia is nonetheless able to marry her true love, Bassanio. Far and away the most clever of the play’s characters, it is Portia, in the disguise of a young law clerk, who saves Antonio from Shylock’s knife. Read an in-depth analysis of Portia.

Antonio - The merchant whose love for his friend Bassanio prompts him to sign Shylock’s contract and almost lose his life. Antonio is something of a mercurial figure, often inexplicably melancholy and, as Shylock points out, possessed of an incorrigible dislike of Jews. Nonetheless, Antonio is beloved of his friends and proves merciful to Shylock, albeit with conditions. Read an in-depth analysis of Antonio. Bassanio - A gentleman of Venice, and a kinsman and dear friend to Antonio. Bassanio’s love for the wealthy Portia leads him to borrow money from Shylock with Antonio as his guarantor. An ineffectual businessman, Bassanio proves himself a worthy suitor, correctly identifying the casket that contains Portia’s portrait. Gratiano - A friend of Bassanio’s who accompanies him to Belmont. A coarse and garrulous young man, Gratiano is Shylock’s most vocal and insulting critic during the trial. While Bassanio courts Portia, Gratiano falls in love with and eventually weds Portia’s lady-in-waiting, Nerissa.

Jessica - Although she is Shylock’s daughter, Jessica hates life in her father’s house, and elopes with the young Christian gentleman, Lorenzo. The fate of her soul is often in doubt: the play’s characters wonder if her marriage can overcome the fact that she was born a Jew, and we wonder if her sale of a ring given to her father by her mother is excessively callous. Lorenzo - A friend of Bassanio and Antonio, Lorenzo is in love with Shylock’s daughter, Jessica. He schemes to help Jessica escape from her father’s house, and he eventually elopes with her to Belmont. Nerissa - Portia’s lady-in-waiting and confidante. She marries Gratiano and escorts Portia on Portia’s trip to Venice by disguising herself as her law clerk. Launcelot Gobbo - Bassanio’s servant. A comical, clownish figure who is especially adept at making puns, Launcelot leaves Shylock’s service in order to work for Bassanio. The prince of Morocco - A Moorish prince who seeks Portia’s hand in marriage.

The prince of Morocco asks Portia to ignore his dark countenance and seeks to win her by picking one of the three caskets. Certain that the caskets reflect Portia’s beauty and stature, the prince of Morocco picks the gold chest, which proves to be incorrect. The prince of Arragon - An arrogant Spanish nobleman who also attempts to win Portia’s hand by picking a casket. Like the prince of Morocco, however, the prince of Arragon chooses unwisely. He picks the silver casket, which gives him a message calling him an idiot instead of Portia’s hand. Salarino - A Venetian gentleman, and friend to Antonio, Bassanio, and Lorenzo. Salarino escorts the newlyweds Jessica and Lorenzo to Belmont, and returns with Bassanio and Gratiano for Antonio’s trial. He is often almost indistinguishable from his companion Solanio. Solanio - A Venetian gentleman, and frequent counterpart to Salarino. The duke of Venice - The ruler of Venice, who presides over Antonio’s trial. Although a powerful man, the duke’s state is built on respect for the law, and he is unable to help Antonio.

Old Gobbo - Launcelot’s father, also a servant in Venice. Tubal - A Jew in Venice, and one of Shylock’s friends. Doctor Bellario - A wealthy Paduan lawyer and Portia’s cousin. Doctor Bellario never appears in the play, but he gives Portia’s servant the letters of introduction needed for her to make her appearance in court. Balthasar - Portia’s servant, whom she dispatches to get the appropriate materials from Doctor Bellario. More Help Why is the title of William Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice named after Antonio? | eNotes Why is the title of William Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice named after Antonio? Lori Steinbach | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator Posted on November 1, 2013 at 9:38 PM This is a really good question, one which still has literary critics puzzled after four centuries. The identity of the antagonist of William Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice is open to some interpretation, as is the identity of the merchant mentioned in the title.

The 1600 printed edition of the play (I have linked the title page, below) makes it clear that Shylock is the villain and Antonio is the merchant, but that is not the title registered in the Stationer's Register (the place where all plays were registered in order to be published) in 1598. That entry (linked below) lists the title as "The Merchant of Venice, or otherwise known as the Jew of Venice." The title probably does refer to Antonio, but this is an interesting discrepancy which makes one wonder if Antonio really was intended to be the merchant of Venice. That being said, it is likely that Antonio is, indeed, the merchant to whom the title refers, and the reason you and others have asked the question, I think, is because Antonio is not a particularly admirable character. If the play is named after him, we rather expect that he is a person we either want to emulate or learn from, and that is not particularly the case with Antonio. Antonio is seen by some as a Christ figure, compassionate and giving to his friend Bassanio, even to the point of sacrificing his life, which is what would have happened if Shylock had exacted his pound of flesh.

While that is one aspect of his character, there is certainly another side, which he displays in all its ugly glory toward Shylock. When Antonio needs Shylock to loan Bassanio money, Shylock reminds him of how Antonio has treated him: November 1, 2013 at 9:08 PM The play could be named after any of the major characters or a theme of the play. It did not have to be named after Antonio, who happens to be the merchant of venice. It could have been named after Shylock, and called The Money-lender of Vencie, or after Portia, and called The Advocate, or after one of the themes, and called The Caskets, or The Choice, or any other choice of names, of which there could have been many many. The choice of Antonio, the merchant, as the name of the play, focusses our attention on all the Merchant themes, or as they are called, the mercantile themes. What are the themes of the mercantile life? What experiences do merchants encounter, and remember, these are people who start business ventures, or sink a lot of their money into a business venture that someone else is starting.

It is the life of the mercantile adventurers. What kind of life do they follow? What kind of risks do they take? A merchant can strike it rich and become a millionare, or their project could fail and they would be left broke. It is the range and the dynamism of mercantile experiences that captures Shakespeare's imagination. We are all merchants at some point in time. We all gamble everything, and take risks with everything, whenever we make really important life decisions. Shakespeare explores the nature of decision making and risk taking. This is why he chose the merchant, Antonio, as his title character. -Robert Einarsson operates Knucklehead Books, a publisher of upper-level Language Arts material from the neo-Scholastic or Middle Ages world view. like 2 dislike 0 what is the significance of the title of the play the merchant of venice? | Merchant of Venice Questions | Q & A | GradeSaver what is the significance of the title of the play the merchant of venice? kindly tell me the answer of this questions as soon as possible....

Asked by rumeesa r #367521 on 4/18/2014 11:22 AM Last updated by jill d #170087 on 4/18/2014 11:35 AM Answered by jill d #170087 on 4/18/2014 11:35 AM I believe that the significance in the title comes down to the fact that the reader is never quite sure who Shakespeare is referring to. In this play, two of the main characters are in fact merchants. First, we have Antonio (shipping merchant and Bassanio's friend). Secondly, we have Shylock, the Jewish merchant who requires Antonio to secure Bassanio's debt. Because we have no idea who the real main character is, Shakespeare has left us to guess as to whom his protagonist is. Which of these characters is he siding with; with whom does his sympathy lie; does he condemn one or both? To me, the significance of the title can be found in trying to figure it all out. We're meant to wonder.

Source(s) Log In To Your GradeSaver Account Email What is the character Portia's full name in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice? Did she have a title of royalty?I would like details of the character... | eNotes May 28, 2009 at 2:25 PM In the Dramatis Personae, Portia is described merely as "a rich heiress", with no other names or titles. From her first scene, Act I, Scene ii, we know that Portia is not only rich, but, at the moment, unhappy because she is not at liberty to choose her own husband. Her suitors are of princely and noble rank, but she finds fault with all of them. In Act II Scene ii one of Portia's suitors, the Prince of Morocco, calls her "my gentle queen" (line 12), but this is only a term he uses to express his regard of her, not her actual title. She is the only heiress of a very rich Venetian nobleman (in the Venetian republic there were noble families, but there were very few actual titles in comparison to other European states).

But as a rich Venetian woman, with not only money but probably ships and trading contacts as her dowry, she was a fit match for any prince (as evidenced by the suits of the princes of Morocco and Arragon). The Prince of Morroco does not describe her specifically, but he and all the other suitors seem to agree that she is very beautiful. "For princes to come view fair Portia: "(II.vii.43) Portia's personality, however is evident in her words and actions. She has already, at the beginning of the play, her own idea of who shall be her husband. But she is loyal, and had given her word to her father to be ruled by his system of husband selection for her. We know that she is somewhat prejudiced, for twice (in Act I and Act II, scene 7) she says that she hopes that no black man comes to press his suit. She is brilliantly logical, on the other hand, and fools all the other lawyers with her careful defense of Antonio when Shylock attempts to take his pound of flesh. She is daring, for she is willing to don a disguise and pretend to be a lawyer in order to save a friend.

She comes up with the extremely clever way that Shylock's demand is foiled; she notes that in the bond there is no provision for any blood, only for the flesh. In this way (for there was a law that if a Jew, at this time, shed Christian blood, their money was forfeited to the state) she makes it impossible for Shylock to demand the terms of the bond. Portia is an extraordinary woman, in possession of most of the great gifts of life; money, liberty, good looks, and intellect. She is, perhaps, no more bigoted racially or religiously than the other Venetians of her day, and she uses her brains in the cause of justice, and saves Antonio's life. like 1 dislike 0 SparkNotes: The Merchant of Venice: Analysis of Major Characters Analysis of Major Characters Themes, Motifs & Symbols Shylock Although critics tend to agree that Shylock is The Merchant of Venice’s most noteworthy figure, no consensus has been reached on whether to read him as a bloodthirsty bogeyman, a clownish Jewish stereotype, or a tragic figure whose sense of decency has been fractured by the persecution he endures.

Certainly, Shylock is the play’s antagonist, and he is menacing enough to seriously imperil the happiness of Venice’s businessmen and young lovers alike. Shylock is also, however, a creation of circumstance; even in his single-minded pursuit of a pound of flesh, his frequent mentions of the cruelty he has endured at Christian hands make it hard for us to label him a natural born monster. In one of Shakespeare’s most famous monologues, for example, Shylock argues that Jews are humans and calls his quest for vengeance the product of lessons taught to him by the cruelty of Venetian citizens. On the other hand, Shylock’s coldly calculated attempt to revenge the wrongs done to him by murdering his persecutor, Antonio, prevents us from viewing him in a primarily positive light. Shakespeare gives us unmistakably human moments, but he often steers us against Shylock as well, painting him as a miserly, cruel, and prosaic figure. Portia Quick-witted, wealthy, and beautiful, Portia embodies the virtues that are typical of Shakespeare’s heroines—it is no surprise that she emerges as the antidote to Shylock’s malice.

At the beginning of the play, however, we do not see Portia’s potential for initiative and resourcefulness, as she is a near prisoner, feeling herself absolutely bound to follow her father’s dying wishes. This opening appearance, however, proves to be a revealing introduction to Portia, who emerges as that rarest of combinations—a free spirit who abides rigidly by rules. Rather than ignoring the stipulations of her father’s will, she watches a stream of suitors pass her by, happy to see these particular suitors go, but sad that she has no choice in the matter. When Bassanio arrives, however, Portia proves herself to be highly resourceful, begging the man she loves to stay a while before picking a chest, and finding loopholes in the will’s provision that we never thought possible. Also, in her defeat of Shylock Portia prevails by applying a more rigid standard than Shylock himself, agreeing that his contract very much entitles him to his pound of flesh, but adding that it does not allow for any loss of blood. Anybody can break the rules, but Portia’s effectiveness comes from her ability to make the law work for her.

Portia rejects the stuffiness that rigid adherence to the law might otherwise suggest. In her courtroom appearance, she vigorously applies the law, but still flouts convention by appearing disguised as a man. After depriving Bassanio of his ring, she stops the prank before it goes to far, but still takes it far enough to berate Bassanio and Gratiano for their callousness, and she even insinuates that she has been unfaithful. Antonio Although the play’s title refers to him, Antonio is a rather lackluster character. He emerges in Act I, scene i as a hopeless depressive, someone who cannot name the source of his melancholy and who, throughout the course of the play, devolves into a self-pitying lump, unable to muster the energy required to defend himself against execution. Antonio never names the cause of his melancholy, but the evidence seems to point to his being in love, despite his denial of this idea in Act I, scene i. The most likely object of his affection is Bassanio, who takes full advantage of the merchant’s boundless feelings for him.

Antonio has risked the entirety of his fortune on overseas trading ventures, yet he agrees to guarantee the potentially lethal loan Bassanio secures from Shylock. In the context of his unrequited and presumably unconsummated relationship with Bassanio, Antonio’s willingness to offer up a pound of his own flesh seems particularly important, signifying a union that grotesquely alludes to the rites of marriage, where two partners become “one flesh.” Further evidence of the nature of Antonio’s feelings for Bassanio appears later in the play, when Antonio’s proclamations resonate with the hyperbole and self-satisfaction of a doomed lover’s declaration: “Pray God Bassanio come / To see me pay his debt, and then I care not” (III.iii.35–36). Antonio ends the play as happily as he can, restored to wealth even if not delivered into love. Without a mate, he is indeed the “tainted wether”—or castrated ram—of the flock, and he will likely return to his favorite pastime of moping about the streets of Venice (IV.i.113).

After all, he has effectively disabled himself from pursuing his other hobby—abusing Shylock—by insisting that the Jew convert to Christianity. Although a sixteenth-century audience might have seen this demand as merciful, as Shylock is saving himself from eternal damnation by converting, we are less likely to be convinced. Not only does Antonio’s reputation as an anti-Semite precede him, but the only instance in the play when he breaks out of his doldrums is his “storm” against Shylock (I.iii.132). In this context, Antonio proves that the dominant threads of his character are melancholy and cruelty. More Help The Merchant of Venice Washington State University THE MERCHANT OF VENICE A 1598 reference to this play notes that it was "'otherwise called The Jew of Venice', suggesting that from the start Shylock was regarded as the play's central character" (Wells 158) even though he appears in only five scenes (Wells 159).

Standard dating of this one places it around 1596-97, but an anonymous play fitting its description was being performed in 1579 and also one called The history of Portio and demorantes -- too early for Stratfordian dating (Clark 331; Ogburn and Ogburn 230; Farina 60). The play's relevance to marriage negotiations between Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Alençon and to the third Frobisher Expedition to the Northwest indicate Oxfordian authorship, and begun in 1578 (Ogburn and Ogburn 229). Performance of it is currently out of fashion because of the apparent anti-Semitic aspects, and the consensus that Shakespeare here "essentially belongs to his age, just this once, in regard to the Jews" (Bloom 188). But that's characteristically superficial or willfully limited reading for you, similar to the case of Chaucer's The Prioress' Tale. Elizabethan society would allow hatred of the theatrical manifestation of a Jewish character. So the dolts get an easy scapegoat here and are allowed to miss the real critique operating in this play.

(Our impulse is still to find a target of hatred. After the end of the Cold War, we had a difficult time finding a stereotype we could hate. We tried to hate the Japanese in the early '90s; alas, it was too economic and abstract to take hold. But now, imagine a play involving an Islamic fundamentalist living in Colfax.) ACT I SCENE i The title character, Antonio, begins the play intriguingly: "In sooth, I know not why I am so sad; / It wearies me" (I.i.1-2). Much ink has been spilled with conjectures about Antonio's melancholy. Perhaps he's simply melancholic of temperament. Or, since "Antonio has a male friend to whom he is devoted with a self-sacrificial intensity that is almost unbelievable" (Asimov 501), perhaps his devotion to Bassanio is homoerotic and the news that this friend seeks to marry has depressed him -- that Antonio is melancholy because "he is losing Bassanio to a woman" (Wells 162). (Antonio is a name Shakespeare uses also in Twelfth Night for a character with an intense devotion to another male).

Or perhaps Antonio has an "ominous foreboding" (Carey 133) about the events that will transpire in the course of this play. At one point in the development of the play Antonio's melancholy may have been Oxford's own (Ogburn and Ogburn 232). [Shepherd Tony, Antony (w/ Cleo), and Antonio all would represent Oxford (Ogburn and Ogburn 852).] But my own sense? See the next scene's commentary. Antonio ends his whimper: "And such a want-wit sadness makes of me, / That I have much ado to know myself" (I.i.6-7). Shakespeare is getting quite good at representing characters who do not know themselves. Friends Solanio and Salerio -- "those unmemorable characters known in the theatre as the Salads" (Wells 162) -- try to explain that Antonio's merchant ship being at sea naturally makes him sad, what with fears of pirates and storms. If they really believe this to be the cause, their graphic description of a shipwreck is not the way to cheer him up!

But what they are describing would be anxiety and dread, not sadness. This looks like another Italian city (like Padua in The Taming of the Shrew) where the citizens interpret everything in materialistic terms. All the Salads can conclude (I.i.50f) is that "some people are, by simple temperament, happy; others sad" (Asimov 502). The Salads may have been representations of Oxford's literary associates (Ogburn and Ogburn 977). The prefix "sal" (or French "sale" but pronounced "sal") means "lewd" -- so we get the "sal" friends of E.O. (io). Burghley objected to Oxford's "lewd" friends (Ogburn and Ogburn 238). A reference to Janus (I.i.50) is intriguing too. When three other friends arrive -- Bassanio, Lorenzo, and Gratiano -- the two Salads take their leave politely, but Antonio claims that beneath their excuses they are anxious to get back to business (I.i.63-64): an odd, strained, and baffling moment signifying at least a tangle of politeness.

Bassanio's entrance line characterizes him as cavalier: "Good signiors both, when shall we laugh?" (I.i.66). Gratiano tries to cajole Antonio a bit, and Antonio renders an embryonic version of a more famous Shakespearean conceit: "I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano, / A stage, where every man must play a part, / And mine a sad one" (I.i.77-79). But perhaps "Antonio was created for nobler things. And so he suffers from that homesickness of the soul that ultimately attacks everyone who 'consecrates' his life to something below his spiritual level" (Goddard, I 91). The phrase "cut in alabaster" resonates: "the figure of Lord Oxford's 'grandsire,' the Fifteenth Earl, was actually 'cut in alabaster' in the family tomb at Castle Hedingham" (Ogburn and Ogburn 244). After Gratiano and Lorenzo depart, Bassanio confesses, good-naturedly, to thinking Gratiano a pretty empty fellow.

Bassanio now hits Antonio up for some cash, even though he is already indebted to him. After all, when you shoot one arrow lord-knows-where, the best thing to do is randomly shoot another and it'll end up really close to the first: problem solved! (I.i.140-144). Bassanio is an "upwardly mobile young urbanite. He is in debt, and he sees that the best way of resolving his problems is to get (temporarily) into further debt" (Garber 284). At present, he needs some wooing cash: In Belmont is a lady richly left And she is fair and, fairer than that word, Of wondrous virtues. (I.i.161-163) Note the apparent ranking of priorities here. No wonder some think Bassanio a fortune-hunter (Wells 162). Bassanio also calls Portia's hair "a golden fleece" (I.i.170) -- suggesting something to be won or achieved (and not much more, considering the function and disappearance of the Golden Fleece in classical myth)!

Antonio has all his money wrapped up in the ships, but he'll allow Bassanio to raise cash elsewhere on his (Antonio's) credit. SCENE ii The scene shifts to "Belmont," 10 miles from Venice and 2 miles from a monastery, as we will find out. This matches the Villa Foscari on the Brenta Canal (Anderson 99; Farina 64). Portia begins this second scene, saying to her waiting-woman, "By my troth, Nerissa, my little body is a-weary of this great world" (I.ii.1-2). Nerissa is skeptical of this indulgent melancholy: "You would be, sweet madam, if your miseries were in the same abundance as your good fortunes are; and yet for aught I see, they are as sick that surfeit with too much as they that starve with nothing" (I.ii.3-7).

MD's diagnosis: "affluenza" -- that yuppy disease we used to hear about some years ago where spoiled wealthy useless elites had nothing else to do but bemoan the slightest hint of discontent while the rest of us don't have the luxury to skip half a day of work despite the cancer. This goes for Antonio too. "Melancholy, weariness, tedium -- the reiteration of the note cannot be coincidence. And the other characters confirm the conjecture. Over and over they give the sense of attempting to fill every chink of time with distraction or amusement, often just words, to prevent their thinking" (Goddard, I 84). Portia, probably with faux haughtiness, tells Nerissa, "Good sentences, and well pronounc'd" (I.ii.10). "They would be better if well follow'd" (I.ii.11). Portia laments the fact that knowing what is good to do is easier than doing it. This will relate to Portia's rhetoric and behavior later (Goddard, I 112), despite the skads of critics perennially going gaga for the supposedly glorious Portia.

We learn of the lottery prepared by Portia's father before his death, whereby suitors must choose between three chests: gold, silver, or lead. [The British sovereign in the 16th century possessed three crowns: iron, silver, and gold, signifying the kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland; the English crown was the iron one (Clark 332-333; Ogburn and Ogburn 231). Even Samuel Johnson suspected a connection between Portia's suitors and Queen Elizabeth's (Clark 342).] According to Henry VIII's will: "our said daughter Elizabeth, after our decease, shall not marry, nor take any person to be her husband, without the assent and consent of the Privy-Councillors, and others appointed by us to be of Council with our said dearest son Prince Edward" (qtd. in Clark 334; cf. Ogburn and Ogburn 231-232).

Even current Stratfordians are willing to acknowledge the connection: "It is possible to see Portia in a historical-allegorical frame as a figure for Queen Elizabeth here -- a lady richly left, whose father's dead hand seems to control the choice of a husband. Elizabeth, like Portia, was the target of suitors from many nations as well as a number of wellborn Englishmen, each one imagining himself on the brink of becoming King of England" (Garber 288). Numerous suitors, guilty of the worst stereotypical traits of their nationalities, have bored Portia already. We hear of a Neapolitan prince obsessed with his horse, who sounds historically like Don John of Austria, also with a low-born mother (Ogburn and Ogburn 245); a morose Palentine; and a French lord whose personality is a pastiche of other men's -- seemingly a mockery of the notorious "Monsieur Le Bon": Alençon, who, with the reference to the thrush or throstle and its French equivalent mauves suggests Alençon dancing for whatever tune ambassador Mauvissière played (Ogburn and Ogburn 245).

Also mentioned is a Scottish lord perpetually wrathful at the English; and a German drunkard, probably John Casimir (Ogburn and Ogburn 246). Finally mentioned is a monolinguistic English baron with no distinct sartorial style (the ancestor of the American-born culture-vulture, ravaging Europe for its "style" and patching together monstrosities -- this type appears elsewhere in the canon). In a few lines in the Merchant of Venice Shakespeare summarized a long list of facts: the will of Henry VIII which directed the manner in which Elizabeth might be married; the parade of suitors from over Europe for her hand and her calculating appraisal of them; Don John's illegitimacy, his status as a Neapolitan Prince, his love of horses, and his one-time ambitions to marry Elizabeth.

(Ruth Loyd Miller, in Clark 343) "The names 'Falconbridge' and 'Oxenford' are precisely parallel in construction: an animal (two syllables) followed by a means of crossing a river (one syllable)" [Chuck Berney, "The Merchant of Venice: 2004 and 1980." Shakespeare Matters 4.2 (Winter 2005): 31] Certainly a character named Falconbridge ("the Bastard") is the playwright's alter ego in King John. Nerissa asks Portia if she recalls Bassanio, and Portia tries to cover her enthusiasm with an air of casualness, but the Prince of Morocco's imminent arrival is announced. The servant mentions that "The four strangers" (I.ii.123) are ready to leave and a fifth, the Prince of Morocco, is on his way, so the numbers don't add up (six "strangers" were listed, and we didn't have the impression they'd had their respective shots at the box contest yet) -- so is this an indication of awkward revision?

When Nerissa brings up the subject of Bassanio, she mentions that he "came hither in the company of the Marquis of Montferrat" (I.ii.114). Noemi Magri has pointed out that this is a gratuitous mention of Guglielmo Gonzaga, better known as the Duke of Mantua (1538-1587) ["Places in Shakespeare: Belmont and Thereabouts." Great Oxford. Tunbridge Wells: Parapress Ltd., 2004. 101]. Gonzaga was almost certainly Oxford's host in Mantua during his mid-1570s travels (cf. Anderson 99). SCENE iii Shylock the Jewish money-lender and Bassanio negotiate, with Shylock being annoyingly indecisive: "well ... well ... well ...." When Shylock tries to establish "Antonio is a good man" (I.iii.12), Bassanio thinks he means morally, while Shylock meant financially sound. "'Good' to Bassanio is an ethical term; to Shylock it is financial" (Garber 297).

Shylock lists dangers to Antonio's venture; "Shylock's statement reminds us that Lord Oxford, on his return from the Continent in 1576 was attacked by pirates ... and that during his absence one of his servants had to be discharged for defrauding him ... so that he knew both 'water-thieves' and 'land-thieves' from personal experience" (Clark 338). Shylock's listing of the dangers may also suggest that at one stage in the development of the play, Oxford was thinking of Burghley as Shylock, in this case his tendency to catalogue and itemize everything (Ogburn and Ogburn 238). Shylock wishes to speak with Antonio directly, and Bassanio invites him to dinner, but Shylock balks: "Yes, to smell pork, to eat of the habitation which your prophet the Nazarite conjur'd the devil into. I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, and so following; but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you" (I.iii.33-38).

The reference to the New Testament story of Jesus exorcising the demons from a man and driving them into a herd of swine (Mk. 5:1-13) is interesting: "the odd detail that Shakespeare's Jew has read the enemy Scripture" (Bloom 184). Shylock has thought through a reason, from an alien (Christian) perspective, as to why they also ought not to eat pork. Clearly Shylock can talk with them, wittily and good-naturedly. But when Antonio himself arrives, Shylock acknowledges his hatred for the merchant in an aside: Antonio is a Christian and he lends out money without charging interest, which hurts the rates Shylock can charge. Antonio is self-righteous (I.iii.70) and hostile, impatient with an analogy Shylock tries to draw to a scriptural story of Jacob: "Mark you this, Bassanio, / The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose" (I.iii.97-98).

Shylock's reference to the sheep of Laban story probably illustrates that Antonio's profits amount to the same thing as Shylock's own practice of charging interest (Goddard, I 90). "Antonio's attempt to distinguish between his mercantilism and Shylock's usury persuades nobody" (Bloom 185). Shylock notes that Antonio has insulted him and spat upon him in the Rialto, and fortune has brought about this current situation. Shylock refers here to his "Jewish gaberdine," the anachronism of which has puzzled some. But Asimov declares, "The Jewish gaberdine was a long, coarse cloak of the kind pilgrims wore in humility, to show that they were approaching some shrine as sinners hoping to be forgiven" (Asimov 518). Antonio, we are given to understand, abhors Shylock's practice of "usury": "Why, then, does not Antonio state his objection to it like a rational being instead of arguing with kicks and saliva?" (Goddard, I 88).

Antonio remains nasty to Shylock, saying that he's likely to spit at him again in the future. Shylock seems sincere, certainly surprised by the seemingly irrational passion Antonio invests in his antagonism: Why, look you how you storm! I would be friends with you, and have your love, Forget the shames that you have stain'd me with, Supply your wants, and take no doit Of usance for my moneys, and you'll not hear me. This is kind I offer. (I.iii.137-142) Bassanio confirms this with his impression, "This were kindness" (I.iii.142). (There's a similar moment in Henry V with Exeter possibly a bit baffled at the King's reaction to the tennis balls.) Shylock will even make this offer without charging interest. Most take this as a shrewd move, and baiting the trap, but does that make as much sense as the possibility that this is Shylock's sincere overture to disregard the past and start over with a charitable attempt to form at least a connection involving some tolerance?

Are we witnessing "a sincere wish to wipe out the past and be friends" (Goddard, I 94)? In a moment, though, perhaps given Antonio's behavior, Shylock adds that if Antonio cannot pay him on the appointed day, "let the forfeit / Be nominated for an equal pound / Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken / In what part of your body pleaseth me" (I.iii.148-151). This is presented as "a merry sport" (I.iii.145) by Shylock. Bassanio advises against this, but Antonio is confident that his ships will come in long beforehand. And Shylock adds that a pound of human flesh is useless, unlike that "of muttons, beefs, or goats" (I.iii.167). It's a deal: and now either they are locked in a hate-bond, or Shylock means something else by all this that's unclear. And besides, Antonio is only a bit happier in this play when he is gambling and taking big risks (Garber 287).

Regarding the name Shylock: "There is a Hebrew word shalakh, which appears twice in the Bible (Leviticus 11:17 and Deuteronomy 14:17). In both places, birds of prey are being listed as unfit articles of diet for Jews. No one knows exactly what bird is meant by shalakh, but the usual translation into English gives it as "cormorant'" (Asimov 510). Clark, however, refers to the colloquial use of the prefix "shy-," defined at the time as meaning "of questionable character, disreputable, shady," and the term "shy-cock," slang for "a wary or cowardly person" (Clark 335-336). Lock was the name of the Treasurer of the Cathay Company, which funded Martin Frobisher's third expedition. Originally, Frobisher was seeking a northwest passage to China but when he found what he thought was gold ore, investors in the third expedition included the 28-year-old Earl of Oxford, to the tune of 3,000 pounds -- the amount of the "bond" in ducats in the play.

Frobisher ranted against Lock, who probably knew the ore was worthless when he sold Oxford his share (Clark 334-335; cf. Farina 64). The Queen herself was an investor in the Cathay Company and must have been deeply interested in the outcome of the Expedition of 1578. She probably took as great an interest in directing legal procedure against Lock as Portia did against Shylock, albeit in somewhat different fashion. (Clark 340)

Question: In Shakespeare’s ‘The Merchant of Venice’, what was the title character’s first name?
Answer: ANTONIO