Merchant Of Venice and Doctor Faustus explorative essay

Upon visiting London in 1592, the Duke of Wurttemberg observed, “most of the inhabitants are employed in buying and selling merchandise, and trading in every corner of the world.” Explore and compare the dramatists use of trade in Christopher
Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus and William Shakespeare’s The Merchant Of Venice with reference to a range of critical reading.
Both plays were written in the 1590 's, the same period at which the duke visited london and made the statement that features in the title of this essay. the duke also so observed trade was an integral cog in the working machine that was london. But this was not only exclusive to london. If we also look back at venice during this time it was represented by shakespere as excotic, its reputation for justice and peace even for the minorities proceeded itself. It was a centre for cultural diversity, trade was not barred to anyone. The definition of trade still holds true for then and now - the commercial exchange (buying and selling on domestic or international markets) of goods and services; but the world of trade expands beyond just the physical act of exchanging goods but also metaphorically, which is used in both plays for example Faustus trading his soul for knowledge and power also Shylock trading his humility/mercy for revenge or his “bond”. Back in the 1500’s special 'Argosies ' (merchant ships) were sent on long voyages, away to exotic lands. What could be brought back held the potential to earn enormous wealth, but with that came great risk. This is a problem we see one of the protagonists face in merchant of Venice. Obviously in the merchant of Venice the plot features heavily the aspect and theme of trade, whereas in Faustus its featured in a more subtle respective. Their takes on trade is contrasted but in some retrospects similar.
Shakespeares the merchant of Venice being primarily viewed as a comedy at the time (even with the graphic and shocking anti semitism) now recognised as morally wrong presentation of a “jew”, as one critic Judith Cook observes- “But nothing will make me admire it, nor has anyone persuaded me the holocaust is irrelevant to my responses ...the Jew in shakespeare 's play is meant to embody what he wishes to despise”Evidence within the play merchant of venice we see, feel and hear the prejudice against shylock from behind the written words “You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog, and spit upon my jewish gaberdine” Sadly this is not an exaggerated show of prejudice at this time, even venice being considered the most diverse and justified country ahead of its time, still present was this religious feud with christians having the upper hand.
Between these two plays there are a number of similarities in the way the authors use trade that I will explore further in detail, for example; obviously the physical tradings between shylock and antonio of money, on the other hand we have the metaphorical or spiritual trade;
Faustus trade of worship of satan opposed to God linked to shylocks trade of humility for his revenge. Metaphorically speaking both plays also see examples of trade within relationships including marriage and friendship. The recurring consequence in both plays follows that of over confidence of characters.
In ‘The Merchant of Venice’ we have the core event where Shylock and Antonio seal the bond where Antonio borrows the 3000 ducats for 3 months, the condition being if he does not pay it back in due time Shylock has the right to extract exactly one pound of flesh from anywhere on Antonio’s body. As mentioned before overconfidence is the beginning of Antonio’s downfall, in response to Bassanio’s concern at Shylocks dark demand he replies “Why, fear not man, I will not forfeit it. within these two months, thats a month before this bond

expires, I do expect return of thrice three times the value of this bond” He is rather nonchalant and does not even consider the implications that could arise, such as his argosies failing to show or coming back empty handed. Now the fact of the matter is Shylock now legally owns that pound of flesh that is currently on Antonio now that Antonio has signed this binding contract. Noticeably he repeats “I” I believe this ties in with his close relationship with Bassanio and his inflated confidence at that moment. He is trying to come across to
Bassanio that he alone will fix his problems - be his saviour if you will. The exaggerated first person also has Antonio come across to the readers as self important with a big ego. This is similar to how Faustus ends up indebted, beginning with cockiness resulting in the loss of his physical body. “This word damnation terrifies not him,For he confounds Hell in Elysium:His ghost be with the old philosophers.But leaving these vain trifles of men 's souls” Elysium is a reference to the greek underworld, whereby the dead’s souls would rest in the afterlife.
Faustus is rather arrogantly proclaiming to Mephistophilis that he does not believe in Hell or
“damnation” that it is rather a fairytale, and the greek philosophers who believed in it all or in the same place anyway. Despite being face to face with a spiritual creature who brings proof of the devil and eternal hell Faustus scoffs at Mephistophilis all the same. “vain trifles” is how he describes the notion of souls, he regards the talk of spiritualness beneath him, obviously not taking it seriously. This nonchalant attitude towards his soul leads to the trade he makes with lucifer in exchange for 24 years of unlimited knowledge and servitude by Mephistopheles as he believes hell to be the eternal deprivation of the afterlife with God, and that he would still be a physical being walking, talking and learning just lacking his soul. Like Antonio he is cocky and waves away any thought on the implications this deal could have and as a result both put themselves in danger of losing their physical body/life. Faustus at the end of 24 years has to give up his body to lucifer he in arrogance assumes his souls is separate and he doesn 't have to go with it to hell or that hell itself is just existence deprived of the afterlife with
God. In comparison these scenarios are similar as both characters are adamant in receiving what they want for example shylock when Antonio is within his grasp he is very repetitive about his bond “I’ll have my bond, speak not against my bond; I have sworn an oath that I will have my bond.” Faustus giddy with the possibility of power to reign over spirits who will do his bidding: “Shall i make spirits fetch me what i please, Resolve me of all my ambiguities, perform what desperate enterprise i will?”. In the Elizabethan period what you had to offer wasn 't about its market value but its worth to the individual, a soul when thought about you would think constitutes as something integral to your life but Faustus deemed knowledge and power much more useful tools and Antonio similarly signs away his own flesh. Also in both cases one wonders what would the use of a soul or a pound of flesh but for the likes of shylock just seeing his nemesis suffer - “The pound of flesh which i demand of him is dearly bought;
‘tis mine, and i will have it.” not giving any logical or justified only that which he has paid for it and signed a legally binding contract. Faustus at the end of his 24 years is taken to hell to suffer with lucifer for the rest of eternity.
Faustus not only trades his God for Lucifer but in doing that also trades away the right to marriage, marriage being a religious contract between two people before God. When he expresses his desire for a wife Mephistopheles is shocked - “How, a wife? I prithee Faustus talk not of a wife.” He then takes it upon himself to steer Faustus away from anything associated with God by producing devils in shapeshifted forms to please him sexually only, instead of a pure christian wife he is presented with a “hot whore”. Faustus would have had to

trade his “wanton and lascivious” appetite but in exchange would receive a christian wife but instead he keeps his sinful behaviour so he can enjoy the splendours of power but he’ll only get what he deserves in a wife. The Merchant of Venice Marriage is a form of trade and investment in that Bassanio had to borrow money and invest it to attempt at winning Portia.
As if it paid off and he successfully courted Portia he would become much more wealthier and have no issue of paying back the debt, seeing as Portias background is know to be incredibly wealthy accumulated by her late father. Bassanio in fact when describing her uses connotations of wealth as thats what he unknowingly associates her with, for example; “Nor is the wide world ignorant of her worth” This statement proves to be true as throughout ‘The
Merchant Of Venice’ we see suitors from all cultures and countries, there was Morocco, the prince of arragon and so forth. They view Portia, much like Bassanio, as an asset to add to their empire of wealth. A critic by the name of Kermode comments on perhaps the more business perspective of Bassanio 's intentions “(Bassanio) wins the fleece. It can be argued that however much Bassanio loves Portia, his main interest is in her money” Marriage customs for a long time have included aspects of trade or have been done in relation to practicality, for example it was customary for a family to send the daughter to be married to her husband with a dowry, in the event that the marriage should result in a divorce or widowing under specific circumstances it would be settled who should keep the dowry. The dowry is much like that of a safety deposit, the money is an incentive for the husband to keep his word and marry the woman and keep her, or risk losing the dowry and any other benefits he could receive from her family if she came from a particularly wealthy one. Also the physical elements in marriage like weddings rings are trades between them, the couple exchange these at the ceremony to symbolise the exchanging of their vows. This is significantly stressed by portia and nerissa to their husbands what these rings represented to them. Not the economic wealth but its sentimental value - “This house, these servants, and this same myself are yours, my lord’s. I give them with this ring, which when you part from, lose, or give away, let it presage the ruin of your love”.
Friendship
Faustus and Mephistopheles strike up an unlikely friendship, while partaking in an ethereal bargain to which Faustus has offered up his soul in exchange of Mephistopheles 24 years of service their relationship develops over the course of the text
Religion
Theatre as a form of trade
Conclusion
Bibliography
Judith Cook, 1983 “if you prick us do we not bleed?”
The Merchant of venice ­ Christopher Marlowe
Doctor Faustus ­ William Shakespeare

Kermode F, 2001 Shakespeare 's language, penguin

Bibliography: Judith Cook, 1983 “if you prick us do we not bleed?”  The Merchant of venice ­ Christopher Marlowe  Doctor Faustus ­ William Shakespeare  Kermode F, 2001 Shakespeare 's language, penguin