Q: Social, Cultural, Economic, Religious, Moral

Alardyce Nicholl regards Shaw as the father of the theatre of ideas in England, and says
that his plays are so many sermons on social follies and social vices. Shaw himself said
that he wrote his plays with the deliberate object of converting the nation to his point of
view. He regarded current views of economics, religion, sexual relationships, etc, as
entirely wrong and so sought to change them by discussing them and turning them and
turning them topsy-turvy in his plays. In the course of his long dramatic career, he has
expressed himself practically on every subject between heaven and earth- literature, art,
medicine, religion, politics, morality, marriage and family relations, racial prejudice,
poverty and social standards.

In other words, the themes of Shaw are bewildering in their variety. However, unity and
coherence in provided by his theory of Life Force. Shaw himself defines Life Force as
“vitality with a direction”. Like Schopenhauer’s Will and Thomas Hardy’s Immanent Will, it
is the creative principal at the back of things, manifesting itself as ceaseless striving in all
living things. Shaw’s Life Force differs from Hardy’s Immanent Will in one important
respect. It is purposive; it is not merely “ceaseless striving”, it is striving with a purpose.
The purpose of the Life Force is to evolve into higher and higher forms of life. It does not
aim at creating greater Beauty, nor at greater physical prowess, but at higher forms of
intelligence. “ It cares as little for Beauty as for morality”. Artificial social codes have no
meaning for it. Even individual happiness does not count. Everything that comes in the
way of its creative function, its drive for betterment, its striving for a higher form of
consciousness, is swept aside. It has worked through a process of “trial and error”, and
has reached the stage of intelligence represented by Man. But it is only a stage in an
apparently endless journey; soon Man himself will be superseded by the Superman. Life
will evolve in the course or centuries into “pure thought”.

Shaw’s philosophy of Creative Evolution and Life Force found its first extended
treatment in Man and Superman (1903). It was further developed in the five plays
constituting the Back to Methuselah series.

Shaw’s view on a variety of other subject becomes explicable, if we keep his theory
of Life Force in mind. He considers poverty an evil, and scorns capitalism because they
defect the purpose of the life force. “His advocacy of socialism”, says Sen-Gupta “is really
subsidiary to his championing of the cause of Creative Evolution. He has never been a
socialist for the sake of socialism. For him it (socialism) is only a means for doing away
with the ponderous machinery of capitalism, which is trying to stifle the activities of the
Life Force.” Shaw is a socialist, because he knows that unless all have equal incomes,
equal freedom and leisure, the Life Force will not be able to move upward. Socialism is
desirable for it makes easy the evolutionary function of the Life Force. Poverty must be
abolished for it represents illness, weakness, disgrace, meanness, ugliness, corruption and
degradation, all of which are serious obstacles in the way of the Life Force. Equality of
income means equal opportunities for all; money is desirable for it means health.
Intelligence, beauty and honour. “In our society Ann has to choose between Tanner and
Tavy, but if there had been perfect equality of incomes, Tanner’s chauffeur, Straker,
would have been in the running and would probably have beaten his rivals,” Such equality
of income and opportunity will lead to the birth of a race of Superman, not all at once, but
in the long run.

Shaw’s socialism is an offshoot of his philosophy of Creative Evolution and hence it has its
own peculiarities. Like the other socialists, he does not go into the technical details of the
matter. In his dramas, he only draws our attention to the basic problems, underpayment
of the poor, idleness of the rich and the consequent waste of leisure and energy, without
entering into any technicalities. “If there is any underpayment, there will be inequality,
overwork, dirt and degradation, and the Life Force will be handicapped. The asphyxia of
poverty must be removed; for the Life Force must breathe,” it is also for this reason that,
unlike the other socialists, he is not in favors of sudden or violent changes in the existing
social order. Life can evolve only slowly during the course of ages, and hence any
overthrow of the existing social order is meaningless and wasteful. Shaw favours only
mild social change. He is in favour of the waiting policy of the Fabian Socialists: he
believes in the illumination of the intellect rather than in the hasty breaches of the law.
Poverty is the theme of Widowers Houses, Mrs., Warren’s Professions and Major Barbara.

No problem of modern society has exercised Shaw’s imagination so powerfully as the

problems of Family, Love, Marriage and Sex-relations. Shaw objects to marriage and
family because these institutions are based on false economics and false biology. As a
biologist, he thinks that procreations is the most sacred work of all, and as a socialist he
demands that all work should be suitably paid for. The most serious of social injustice is
done to women, for they are underpaid in the industrial world, and not allowed to have
any independent income at all for their work in the family. Underpayment in the
industrial world leads to Mrs. Warren’s profession, but exploitation of women within the
family is even the worst form of prostitution. The institution of family rests on a
foundation of fraud. The husband thinks that he provides security, defense, livelihood,
honour and prestige to the wife. But in reality, we are shown in Candida, it is the wife of
who provides comforts for the man, and keeps our vulgar cares from him. In back to
Mathuselah, he gives us glimpses of an ideal society in which Family and Marriage and
private property are no more, and the state is responsible for the rearing of children. In
this ideal society, women, like Zoo, who specialize in the breeding of children, do not
recognize their own children, not do they know about their paternity. According to our
codes of morality, this is certainly scandalous, but then Zoo belongs to a society in which
there are no scandals.

Shaw is against woman’s dependence on man not only because it is socially unjust, but
also because such economic dependence defeats the very purpose of the Life Force. She
tries to secure a man who can provide nutrition for himself and for her children, rather
than one who is “biologically attractive”, i.e. can serve better than other males the
purpose of the Life Force. Thus economic consideration and compulsions deflect the
woman from the pursuit of the male most attractive biologically. To secure economic
independence, poor women pursue and try to win over rich men, even though they are
not good. This theme finds an extended treatment in Heartbreak House.

“Marriage and family are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the.” – (Sen.

Gupta). Marriage is a social institution meant for procreation; it means the alliance of two
people for prolonged relation. As marriage is intended to be a permanent institution, it is
strengthened and supported by another social institution, the family. Family is even more
permanent than marriage, for it runs from generation to generation and includes
countless marriages. Hence institutions, like family and marriage, are futile and
meaningless. Marriage means a lifelong companionship. But the real intimacy between
the husband and the wife is merely a matter of moments. This is shown by the frequent
flirtations in which married couples indulge, in their constant bickering, in the boredom
and ennui of modern life. In order to make the life- long joint existence within the family
bearable, married relationship has been invested with much that is sentimental fiction
that the husband and the wife are devoted to each other, and that they work together for
nobler purposes of life. Shaw calls this a mere hoax. Sexual enjoyment can confer no real
intimacy, and as far as the Life Force is concerned, husband and wife are as great strangers
to each other as to other people in the world. This has been clearly shown in the little
drama Overruled.

Marriage is based on falsehood and sentimentality. Decency and Respectability are mere
pretensions to cover up that falsehood. People, who have secured material prosperity in
the world, do not want any change in the existing order and so support and justify these
false institutions. This morbid sentimentality has a disastrous effort on civilization, for it
comes in the way of free and frank discussion of truth. Sex is very real- and sacred as it
serves the purpose of the Life Force- but its free discussion in society is taboo because it
will be fatal to the institutions which respectable people hold dear. Shaw objects to
marriage because by being associated with private property, respectability and
sentimentality, it has become an obstacle in the way of the Life Force. By being connected
with private property, it diverts attention from procreation to the acquisition of wealth.
Shaw is against romance, because it is not essential to sex, and it obscures the real
creative purpose of the Life Force. In the ideal society of Shaw, pictured in back to
Methuselah, both marriage and family will go, and women, like Zoo, who specialize in
babies, will not be compelled to live in the company of their father or fathers, if that
company is distasteful to them.

It is the maternal aspect of women, says Duffin, which Shaw emphasizes. He sees her as
the prospective mother of many children. He is all in favor of social and economic justice
to women, but he is against the worship and adoration of women. “Entering is lists as the
woman’s champion, demanding that women should be emancipated that the vote should
be given to them and that the doors of the profession should be open to them”, says
C.E.M. Joad, “Shaw not only gave women the freedom to do as men did, but gave men the
freedom to treat women as if they were men”. In the preface to Man and Superman, he
speaks contemptuously of the romantic adoration of women. Women are not the
incarnation of music, poetry and painting, but they are flesh and blood as men are. The
female for him is not the weaker sex, but the stronger sex, in the sense that women’s
instincts are more compelling, their wills more determined, their sense of reality more
vivid, and because the fury of creation in more violent in them than in man. Their coyness,
their reticence, even their sympathetic interest in the affairs of men, are so many snares
to catch the male and reduce him to the status of a bread- winner for herself and her
children. Woman is not the pursued, but the pursuer; it is the man who is wooed and
won.

This theme has been treated at length in Man and Superman, while in Arms and the Man
he has tried to show romantic love in its true colours.

Women is able to manipulate ninety-nine men out of hundred and convert them into
suitable bread- winners, but the hundredth case is that of the genius, and here the woman
fails. He fact is that the genius- inventors, artists, scientists, adventurers, etc.- like woman
herself, is the repository of a “strong potential of life”, having been specifically created
for, “the purpose of carrying life to higher levels.”-(JOAD). “In the genius, life’s purpose is
to lift itself to heights of consciousness not previously achieved”, continues Joad, “in the
woman to safeguard and protect the level which has already been attained”. It is by
means of art, science, literature etc, that life lifts itself up to higher levels, and the great
geniuses are the instruments through which this purpose is fulfilled. The genius impelled
by the Life Force working within him will sacrifice even wife and children in the pursuance
of his purpose, as ruthlessly as woman sacrifices the ordinary man for her purpose. He
does not, therefore, make a good husband and bread-winner. Essentially self- centered
and egocentric, he comes in clash with the woman, and the clash is often tragic. A woman
in order to win over the artist pretends to be sympathetic to his artistic activity and
succeeds in inducing the artist to waste his talents in glorifying her. This is a perversion of
art, and hence arises Shaw’s condemnation of romantic art. However good, art must be
for, ‘Life sake’, and not for, “art’s sake”.

Again, it was Shaw’s theory of Life Force that made him a strict vegetarian. Death is the
negation of life; it defeats the very purpose of the Life Force. To take animal life is not only
wicked but also wasteful. He was a pacifist not out of cowardice or sentimentalism, but
because of sound, practical considerations. War should be fought only when absolutely
necessary, it must be regarded as a necessary evil and there should be no glorification of
it. He has no admiration for the warrior-hero. In Arms and the Man, he explodes the
romantic nonsense about war and soldiering. All soldiers are stupid, and cowards at heart,
and food is essential on the battlefield than ammunition. It is a soldier’s duty to protect
his life to the best of his ability, even though it means flying away from the battlefield
cowardice is a fundamental instinct and it is patriotic. Shaw is an enemy of capitalism and
imperialism because they are the cause of war.

Shaw attacks in one play after another the ponderous machinery of law and justice, for it,
too, is based on false economics and false biology. Our laws are engines of vengeance
designed to protect private property, and Shaw cannot tolerate vengeance, for it is
destructive. “evil, argues Shaw, should be counteracted by good and not by a hostile
force.”- (Sen.-Gupta). His captain Brassbound ultimately discovers that the present laws
are not based on the abstract principles of justice, but are devices to wreck vengeance on
those who disturb property. In Androcles and the Lion, he shows that even religious
persecution is irreligious, and motivated by personal or political causes. A selected few
control the legal and political machinery and corrupt it. Democracy itself has degenerated
as a result of the corrupting influence of big capitalists. In Heartbreak House, he shows
that in a capitalistic society, the successful politicians and lawmakers are all frauds, “who
are, pledged to support the vested interests which have given them the power they
misuse”

Shaw’s theory of Life Force and his Socialism also explains his aversion to the science of
medicine. Doctors live on disease just as charity lives on poverty. if there were no poverty,
there will be no disease, and also no medicine. Disease is against nature, and so Shaw is
against those who perpetuate disease (the capitalists) or those who thrive on disease (the
medical profession). It is the business of the state to look after the health of the people; it
must not be left in the hands of a few mercenary individuals.

“Religiously, his family background was Protestant”, says Collins, “but Shaw early
rejected the Christian faith.” Throughout his long career, he has warred so much on
conventional religion. That he has often been regarded as irreligious. However, nothing
can be farther from the truth. In this respect, he has not merely pulled down old idols, but
he has also tried to build up a new idol of his own, and that idol is Creative Evolution
Creative Evolution is Shaw’s religion and it is oriented by his economics. As we are told in
Major Barbara poverty degrades and religion is not for empty stomachs. Money is the
most important thing in the world because a sound and successful morality can be built up
only on the basis of money. So long as there is no real religion.

Though shaw regards sounds economics as essential for sound religion, his religion itself
is more biological than economical. It is a religion of instinct rather than of reason, shaw
wants to do away both with the tyranny of reason and the tyranny of passion and so
advocates that man should be guided by the unconscious Life Force rather than by
convention or reason. His heroes and men of Destiny, like Caesar and Napoleon, may yield
to passion momentarily, but they are not its slave for any length of time. They are not
guided by love and hatred of other person, but by his own instincts. The new man, the
superman, whom Shaw pictures in Black to Methuselah will be free from the tyranny of
Poverty, Passion, Reason and Morality. His ideal will not be the attainment of Beauty or
happiness. He will be guided by his instincts, by intuition, and such guidance would be his
religion. However, Shaw fails to show that such instinctive action will be better and noble
than the action guided by reason and intellect. Chesterton exposes this incompleteness of
Shaw’s religion when he points out that Shaw fails to clarify the ultimate end of creative
evolution, and to show, “how it can really be better than what is behind.”

Shaw’s condemnation of such sacred institutions as marriage and family has led moralists
to denounce him as irreligious and obscene. And this attitude, in its turn, has led critic like
Chesterton to regard Shaw as essentially a Puritan. But Sen-Gupta rightly points out, “As a
matter of fact, he is neither a sensualist nor a Puritan, but a biologist.” A sensualist makes
pleasure the sole aim of life while for a Puritan repression is the greatest good of life.
Shaw is as much opposed to repression as to pleasure being made the sole goal of life. For
Shaw, indulgence, especially sex experience, is not taboo, as it is a part, and a necessary
part, of human growth, “but he regards the substitution of sensuous ecstasy for
intellectual activity as the very devil”.

Instead of the Puritan Virtue’. Natural virtue means comparative immunity from
temptation, from the desires which the flesh is naturally heir to, it means that a man good
by nature, does habitually and instinctively what is good and right. Shaw’s great men are
all good in this sense. Thus, his Caesar may yield to the charms of Cleopatra for some
time, but when she stands in the way of the great task lies ahead, he leaves her with cold
indifference. A naturally good man may indulge, but he is not a slave to that indulgence.

Shaw’s great men, as already hinted above, are all naturally good. They are realistic; they
see things as they are. They have fixity of purpose which makes them rise above any
indulgence of the moment. They have capacity for sustained work and so they are, “able
to distance all competitors in the strife of political ambition.” They are hard working
because they have more than an average vitality. They are original in the sense that they
have overcome common human weaknesses, and so are not the slaves of common
temptations. They are magnanimous, impartial and rational, for they have risen above the
passions of love and hatred.

Shaw’s concept of greatness is brought out by plays like Caesar and Cleopatra, the Man of
Destiny and St. Joan. The lat mentioned play also embodies Shaw’s conception of
sainthood. In short, Shaw has expressed himself on a bewildering variety of subjects.
However, there is no incoherence, as unity and form are provided by his philosophy.

Q: B.Shah Analysis Against a Social Background

George Bernard Shaw was born in 1856, in Dublin, into a middle class family. After
finishing school he started working as a clerk, a post he soon abandoned in order to join
his mother and stepfather in London and pursuit his literary carrier. Given that his first
novels were rejected he would not live on his writing and was not fully independent until
he began working as an art critic. Parallel with his struggling to succeed in the literary
world Shaw was, from early age, interested in politics, precisely Socialism, and was
politically active. He became a member of the ‘Fabian Society’, a left wing oriented group
established to promote fight for social justice by peaceful means. Trough this activity he
met his wife, moved with her to Ayot St Lawrence, Hertfordshire where he continued his
writing and passed the remainder of his days.
Shaw’s life, his literary work and political activities are tightly interwoven, cross-
referenced and inseparable one from another. Many of ideas that he tried to present to
the English society are current and soundly explicated in his work. Shaw himself insisted
that his writings are, before all, didactic and socially engaged. His first novel (at the time
rejected), Cashel Byron’s Profession, was about his disdain and contempt for English
educational system. In many a detail it was an autobiographical novel of hardship and
suffering in England’s public educational institutions of the time, where strictness and
austerity did not compensate for poor and inadequate education. He was especially
against corporal punishment, at the time still present and widely used in England’s
schools. This particular attitude is visible in many of his works, notably Pygmalion, where
the educational system had managed to produce exactly nothing out of Freddy Eynsfor-
Hill and his sister Clara. The very opening of the play gives us playwright’s attitude
towards academic prejudice and (what he saw as) hard shelled, impenetrable
discrimination of the ‘Oxbridge’ circle.
As we have already mentioned, Shaw’s criticism and social engagement was conducted in
a much larger scope than England’s educational system. In his writings, we are able to
distinguish a vast number of different subjects placed under a piercing analysis: class
struggle, social injustice, battle for women rights. He also stayed just to his attitude that
art should be educative (when schools are apparently not) and impregnated his works
with remarks on behavior, snobbery, even practical advices on how one should conduct
himself in the society. We will take a closer inspection upon the social order he probed in
his works and try to explicate on major points of his critic in one of his most well known
plays,Pygmalion.
This play was published in 1913, one year prior to First World War. This is the pinnacle of
the ‘Edwardian era’ of the English society, although some consider it to be finished with
the death of King Edward, which occurred in 1910, and others with the Titanic shipwreck
that took place in 1912. Some, on the other hand, go as far to 1918 in order to proclaim an
end to this particular époque while others claim that it was all in fact a part of Victorian
period. If we take into consideration Europe in its entirety, of which United Kingdom is a
significant part, this is the period of ‘Belle époque’ which ended with the First World War.
Significant traits of these three periods are present and visible in Pygmalion. As much as
they were chronologically overlapped or even existing in the same time, these periods
have separate characters that vary in numerous aspects.
The Victorian era refers to a rule of Queen Victoria, which spanned from 1837 to 1901. It
was the longest reign in history of the state. At the beginning of the period, England was
rather undeveloped, agrarian country (although it was, even then, the most industrialized
nation in the world). First years of the reign were marked by a series of epidemics (notably
cholera and typhus) and some economic collapses and crop failures. During the reforms
the Queen had performed, numerous improvements were made: the economy was vastly
industrialized and the distant regions of the Kingdom were made accessible by a well
developed system of railways. The economic emphasis placed on the industry rather than
the agriculture made a considerable change in balance of wealth in the society. It gave rise
to bourgeoisie or the middle class, while taking a certain part of influence out of nobility,
whose incomes where mostly based in agriculture. Industrialization led to further
development of the cities and middle classes were further more associated with the city
way of life. With economic progress also came the advance in science and culture, and
with those came the class awareness and first serious attempts of fight for women’s
rights, most notably the Married Women’s Property Act. The ‘Victorian moral’ is still well
known and today it stands as a symbol of seriousness, Puritanism, even austerity. It was
closely connected to bourgeois’ strict, sometimes minimalist way of life. The second part
of the reign is marked by emphasis on the imperial, colonial politics and conflicts it had led
to, notably Anglo-Zanzibar War and the Boer War.
The country’s politics became more and more liberal and the classes got more distant,
which would mark the beginning of the Edwardian era. While Victorian period sported
rigid morals and modest lifestyle, King Edward, who himself was ‘a man of the world’,
introduced a model of behavior influenced by European fashionable elite and ‘Belle
époque’. This change in socially acceptable behavior had increased the spread between
the classes further more. On one side there where middle class (that in richness often
surpassed high class) and aristocracy and on the other there where lower classes, the
proletariat. However, due to Victorian era investments in education and rise of general
political awareness, further class segregation was followed by the fight for social justice.
Socialism was gaining on popularity, politicians were paying more attention to problems
of underprivileged and civil rights were developing, most notably issue of women’s
suffrage and women’s right in general.
This is the exact moment in which Pygmalion took place, in the midst of the great social
turmoil and the continued affirmation of the middle class in English society. It would be
difficult to separate this work from its middle class background. It is written by a member
of middle class, for the middle class audience. It is impregnated with problems and issues
inherent to middle class. Even though Pygmalionis a play, not a novel, the plot
corresponds in great detail to a bourgeois (middle class) genre par excellence,
the bildungsroman.
The ‘formation novel’ or the ‘novel of self-cultivation’ (possible translations
of bildungsroman) is a genre presented to the world by Goethe in 1795, by his
novel Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre, which is the paragon of the genre. It was a part of
Goethe’s widespread effort to establish and uphold middle class values and lifestyle in
Germany. The main prejudice of aristocratic society is that a man, with certain qualities
that are bestowed upon him by his birth (and by his birth only, therefore any change is
quasi impossible), is born into a world of steady constants: bildungsroman, on the other
hand, emphasizes the fact that a man can cultivate and change himself. In another words,
the man can adapt himself to the world, which is, contrary to the previous belief, an ever
changing place of constant motion. The hero needs to learn how to compromise, to
overcome certain illusions nourished by his youth and naiveté and most important of all
to accept guidance. Many a novelist of the nineteen century gave at least one example of
the genre: Stendhal, Le rouge et noire, Balzac, Les illusions perdues, Flaubert, L’éducation
sentimentale, and the one to present the genre to the British audience, Charles Dickens
with pretty much every novel he ever wrote (we will take Great expectations for
example). The genre lived well into the twentieth century with works of Joyce, James,
even Proust and Mann, however more than often as a parody and tweak of the genre.
It might strike us as a certain oddity that the theme developed in late eighteenth century
Germany and popular throughout the middle nineteen century Europe found its way into
early twentieth century English society. However, we must bear in mind that the English
culture has its own specifics. While being one of the most liberal and openly capitalistic
societies in the world, it is one also of rare cultures that never had a revolution. England,
even of today, is an extremely conservative society, where class issues are present in
everyday life in a greater measure than arguably anywhere else in the world (except
perhaps India). The differences between high, middle and low class are seemingly
abysmal. That perspective is necessary to justly appreciate the subversive character of this
play and what it may have represented a hundred years ago.
As we have mentioned, even though it is a play, Pygmalion bares many traces of
the bildungsromangenre. The principal character, a former flower girl, is a persona of
great wits, talent and charm: yet she is of the modest of origins, not having anything in
the world but herself. Still, thanks to her abilities and natural predispositions, as well as a
careful tutorship, she manages to transform herself into a genuine lady, presenting a
social grace (and beauty) to best one given by a born lady, Clara. Like Goethe’s Meister,
Dickens’ Pip of Balzac’s Lucien, Eliza has tutors which guide her on her way to becoming a
lady, in changing herself to better fit the world and changing, as much as she can, the
world to be more suitable for her. Didactic dimension is ever present in this particular
genre, so it is in Pygmalion: Shaw dedicates a good portion of dialogue and no less of
prologue and epilogue to present us with his attitudes towards snobbery, behavior and
class prejudice. One of principal traits of the genre is the irony[1], certain distance
between the author and the principal character, where by no means he is presented as
ideal: Shaw maintains this irony in regard to every character in the play. Even the wisest
of man (Professor Higgins and Colonel Pickering) are sometimes presented as stubborn
and confused as children are, even though they are the seemingly almighty tutors.
Just like every hero (or heroine) of the genre Eliza must also lose her illusions and support
moments of great distress: she must have periods of moral downfall and problems with
determination, which she will, of course, overcome. The key moment is every formation
novel is certainly the one where principal character realizes a great truth about him
and/or life in general: these epiphanies, so to say, naturally have their place in Pygmalion.
The final dialogue between Eliza and Professor Higgins is such a moment, where both
reveal their true feelings and thoughts, even to themselves: but we could say the same for
the moment following successful dinner party, where Eliza throws slippers on Professor
Higgins.
Even though the genre includes irony as one of his major characteristics, Shaw tries to be
ironic even with the genre itself. In the standard set up of a formation novel characters
romantic illusions and unreal expectations would be surmised to irony, as those are the
features a character must change in order to succeed in life. Class issues, however, are not
to be touched or placed under question, and they rarely are. For Goethe, who spent his
entire life reaffirming middle class trough various works as the absolute and nearly ideal
one, it would have been a blasphemy. One could debate whether Flaubert had intended
to criticize society in France of the era, but his insight and criticism were more towards the
emptiness of life and prevailing stupidity in people than towards a certain social solution.
It was Dickens who first included the question of classes and critics of industrialized
society in his interpretation of formation novel. Shaw tried to overcome this middle class
boundary imposed to the genre and place the class problem and social adhesion as a
principal question. In other words, Shaw very much politicized the principal features of a
formation novel and used them as engaged art.
This leads us to the next principal attribute of Pygmalion, its subversivness. Although for
today’s standards this play could hardly qualify as subversive, we must bring before our
eyes the circumstances of that particular era and the very moment when this play
appeared. As we have already mentioned, England is a class organized society with a
strong right as political position. It is a monarchy based upon the economy of liberal
capitalism. So, any socialist idea at the time of the zenith of English imperial power might
have not been welcomed so gladly and open mindedly. Aristocracy, (no matter how great
the ascent of the upper class may have been), was, and still is quite respected. Yet in this
play we have attitudes openly denouncing the true nature (as it appeared to Shaw) of
their class.
At a certain point, Eliza says that while she was a simple flower girl, she was self sufficient
and depended on no one. She was of insufficient incomes for a decent existence and living
rather uncomfortably, but was honest and made up her own income. After becoming an
elegant woman, she is rendered incapable of taking care of herself. Only thing she can do
is get married, that is sell herself: as she puts it rather bluntly ‘Before I sold flowers, now I
have to sell myself’. It is not only the case with her person, rather with the entire class:
ladies (and even gentlemen) of name and stature found it disgraceful to work, so, the only
thing they could do, if they fall into financial trouble was to find a rich husband or wife.
This was an economic problem as well as it was moral, for England had, in fact, an entire
class of society effectively unable to take care of itself, always depending on the work of
others, that is lower class.
Those were the calamities of financially challenged nobility or middle class. On the other
hand, even when means of existence appear to fall from the sky, (like they did for Eliza’s
father) even that particular chain of events cannot bring anything but trouble. Mr.
Doolittle[2], a former dustman, explains in a long monologue how great money brought
him no happiness, on the contrary. Now he finds himself enchained by the various rules of
etiquette inherent to higher classes: also, he is surrounded by an army of frauds who are
trying to take some of his money away, while before he was one of those people who
would ‘touch’ someone richer then he is. His wife to be, a former free spirited,
independent woman finds herself crushed by the newly imposed regulations and even
accepts to marry Mr. Doolittle in order to respect and uphold now obliging bourgeois
moral. But the worst of all is that Eliza’s father finds himself completely incapable of
departing from his new situation, now meter how unpleasant it may be: his spirits are also
crushed by the weight of money, social stature and prestige. This particular attitude, that
money and possession do not bring happiness but trouble, is highly disregarded in a
capitalist, materialistic society which was founded on the excess of property. We see
Shaw’s socialist ideas shining through these lines of dialogue: one needs not more than
one can handle or even more than one can make.
What Shaw is telling his audience in a quite obvious way is that the man is fully free only
when he is capable to take care of himself. Furthermore, excess possession-wise oriented
moral leads to a certain social model that does no good to personality. One becomes
enchained and formed by various rules quite different from his own personality. We see
another example for this attitude. Clara Eynsford-Hill, presented in the beginning of the
play as a rather shallow snob, gladly accepts Eliza’s vulgarity thinking that those are the
‘new ways’. Her mother is more reluctant: but Clara takes anything she thinks comes from
a certain social model, even if those are plain and simple bad manners and impolite talk.
This scene is another subversive point of a play and a slap in the face of an upper class
society. It demystifies their most sacred values: decency, distance, politeness and social
grace. It goes to show how easy it is to bring down rules that have been around for a long
time. Further than that, in a conclusion we see that not only the upper classes are easily
changeable in values presented to them (and by them) as monolith and forever, they are
completely incapable of surviving on themselves. Freddy has a hard time trying to make a
living. His education proved to be pointless: in this aspect Shaw combined critics of
educational system and class society: so he must reenter school, which proves to be
completely useless, because school itself is good-for-nothing. It is thanks to Eliza’s abilities
and a turn of good luck they are able to make a living. On the other hand, Clara, Freddy’s
sister, founds herself rejected by society until she is able to leave her snobbishness behind
and start being open minded. Mr. Doolittle, now a respectable gentleman, is more than
welcome into the highest spheres of English society and he never stops accentuating the
fact that he was born a commoner. This, as romantic as it may occur us, is actually quite
subversive and difficult to imagine in reality, especially in the zenith of Edwardian era.
These are, however, not the only aspects of play that we might find subversive and
morally challenging. Shaw’s attitude towards women is, for the time, quite advanced.
Although throughout Edwardian period it was not uncommon to speak of women’s rights,
Shaw did decide to go one step further. Women characters in Pygmalion are, with few
exceptions, actually superior to man. Mr. Higgins’ mother must always apologize for the
rudeness oh her son, further more she must act as a voice of reason and explain certain
things in great detail so that he could understand them. Eliza is by far the strongest
personality of them all, also the most sensible and gifted one: in numerous occasions it is
stated that she is potentially better in phonetics than the Professor Higgins himself.
Female characters are independent, stable and intelligent: even the little snob Clara
becomes open minded and gains her intellectual autonomy at the end of the play. On the
other hand, male characters are often lost, confused and not capable to fully understand
what exactly is going on. The most interesting male character is by far Eliza’s father, Mr.
Doolittle, but no matter how charming he may be he is still presented as irresponsible,
moral-free nihilist who is ready to sell his daughter for five pounds (or fifty if it was for
dishonest intentions). Colonel Pickering is a polite, genteel man, but rather bland,
indecisive and inclined to easily support opinions of others. Freddy is a sympathetic young
man but with no ability or faculty whatsoever. In their couple, it is up to Eliza to take all
the decision and to keep them afloat. This particular attitude differs in more than one
aspect from traditional role of women and man: it is also a little more than play engaged
in obtaining women’s rights. It sports a certain attitude towards men as well.
This particular aspect of the play can be attributed to Shaw’s left wing convictions. It is a
wide spread fact that, in most communist countries, while having suffered from various
forms of dictatorship women where equal to men – also up to the point where they were
equally often executed and sent to concentration camps. The point is that the treatment
of man and women did not differ. In Soviet Russia, during the Second World War both
sexes could equally participate in the army, before and after the war they could have been
the members of the Party etc. It is a left oriented attitude that upholds the equality of
sexes. Perhaps making women more stable and intelligent then man was Shaw’s way to
‘put the scale into balance’, as social and racial injustice and prejudice were much visible
and present all around. In the Edwardian period this attitude towards sexes must have
provoked more surprise than it does today.
In a certain fashion, Shaw’s social and political ideas that are so densely interwoven into
his works became more and more present in England’s modern history. After the world
wars one came to talk more often about a society of meritocracy, where it is possible (still
very hard, but possible) by a personal effort to change class and gain access to quality
education, better lifestyle and all other attributes of higher class. Women are socially and
politically much better off than they were during his time and entirety of discrimination
comes from individual cases rather than social structures. But Shaw’s work did not focus
just on women’s position in society or on social, political problems. It was also
preoccupied with human relations, which made it rich in fine humor, genuine situations
and even authentic pathos.

Through the Characterisation of Shylock and Portia, Shakespeare has been able to
develop important ideas related to the concept of equality. Do you agree?

Shakespeare’s the Merchant of Venice can be read on two levels; the first, a typical
Shakespearean tragi-comedy with villains, heroes and misinterpretations. The second is an
attack on Venetian Society, with Portia and Shylock alone highlighting three inequalities:
racism, patriarchy and religious intolerance. This particular layer is subtly pointed to
throughout the play, and some argue that it does not exist. Although Shylock is cast as the
villain of the play, and Portia an object of desire, Shakespeare’s layered characterisation of
their characters exposes the deeply unequal society of Venice.

Shakespeare exposes racism and religious intolerance in Venice by casting Shylock as a

Jewand have the Christians in the play insult him, his race, and his religion. Antonio is the
main symbol of anti-semitism in the play, and represents the body of Christians in
Elizabethan Venice (talking about Antonio) “You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog, and
spit upon my Jewish gabardine”. Shakespeare uses insulting dialogue to show the way Jews
were treated in that time, accentuating the inequalities of Venetian society and providing
Shylock witha reason to exact revenge on Antonio. Shylock sets a bond with Antonio, that
agrees that Shylock would lend Antonio three thousand ducats, and if the bond was not paid
after three months, Shylock would have “an equal pound of your fair flesh”. Shakespeare
highlights the anti-semitic society by showing that even though Shylock has agreed to lend
Antonio money, Antonio continues to insult Shylock “I am as like to call thee so again, to
spit on thee again, to spurn thee too”.

Shakespeare casts Shylock as the villain of the play to provide a standard plot, yet presents
Shylock with depth and dimension through Shylock’s speeches on discrimination. The first
speech on discriminationrefers to Antonio borrowing money off Shylock. Despite the
lending of the money, Antonio nonetheless considers Shylock as beneath him, “I would be
friends with you… forget the shames… supply your present wants… and you’ll not hear me.”
Shakespeare reveals in Shylock’s speech a forgiving and kind part of his character, which is
hidden beneath his bitterness, a result of his experiences of religious and racial
intolerance.Shakespeare gives Shylock another speech that exposes his human aspects when
he talks of having his bond. Shylock argues that Antonio has wronged him, and that therefore
he shall have revenge, following Christian example. Shylock’s speech is a plea for equality
among Jews and Christians, saying that Christians and Jews are both human and their
differences are minor “healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and
summer as a Christian is”. Shylock then moves on to say “And if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge?”, by giving Shylock this line, Shakespeare supplies Shylock with a reason and
means for demanding revenge on Antonio, giving him a human quality and yet another
dimension.

Shakespeare portrays Portia as a victim of the patriarchal society of Venice, and uses her
character to convey the restrictions placed on women. Throughout the play Portia is subjected
to the inequalities of being a woman in Venice, one of these limitations being unable to
choose who she can marry. Portia is tied down by her father’s will, which says that each
“suitor”(man who is willing to marry Portia) shall entera lottery, the prize beingto marry her.
Her suitors must choose out of three caskets, the successful suitor is given the right to marry
Portia, “If you choose that wherein I am contained, straight shall our nuptial rights be
solemnised”.Shakespeare uses the caskets to uncover the lack of ownership Portia has over
her own body.Portia discusses this lack of ownership, “So is the will of a living daughter
curbed by the will of a dead father”, showing how her father’s power, even in death, rules
over her own, a symbol of the Venetian patriarchy. Another limitation of Portia’s, in which
Shakespeare underpins the patriarchy of Venice, is the court scene. Women are not allowed
in Venetian Courts, due to the gender biases of that society, yet when Portia dresses up as a
man, she is welcomed by the judge. “You are welcome; take your place”. By giving Portia
this role andidentifying that the difference of being allowed inside a court is the gender of a
person, Shakespeare once more reveals the unequal society of Venice. “we are both accoutred
like young men”. Shakespeare also references the fact that Portia is far more intelligent than
her male counterparts, and explains the restrictions placed on her for being a woman.

Shakespearehighlights the absurdity of Venice’s patriarchy by contrasting Portia against the

men she is subservient to, who are less capable.Shakespeare presents Portia as an intelligent
character, who uses wit to manipulate and counter the inequalities of Venetian society such as
gender-biased laws and rules.In the casket scene, Shakespeare creates a highly visible
contrast between Portia and her suitors, who have more rights than Portia. Portia is smarter
than her suitors, yet they can marry her if they choose the correct casket. “He doth nothing
but frown... He doth nothing but talk of his horse... He is drunk...” Shakespeare uses the
comedy of Portia making fun of each suitor to compare her high intelligence against their
major faults to emphasise the ludicrousness of the Venetian social structure.Giving Portia’s
character the role to dress up as a lawyer, Shakespeare shows his audience that although
Portia is a woman, she can play the role of a powerful and learned man, “greatness whereof I
cannot commend”. Shakespeare shows the remarkableabsurdity of how the judge praises
Portia, assuming she is a male due to her wisdom, “Sir, I entreat you home with me to
dinner”, to the point of asking Portia to dine with him. This once again distinguishes the fact
that if Portia remained dressed as a woman, her opinion would be ignored. The third case in
which Shakespeare compares this extreme contrast is the fact that the only person capable of
saving Antonio, the symbol of Christian men, is Portia, a woman. Shakespeare intensifies this
contrast by having Antonio heavily praise Portia, still believing that she is a man, “And stand
indebted... in love and service to you evermore”.

Throughout the Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare has characterised Shylock and Portia in
such a way that unmasks the inequalities and biases of Elizabethan Venice, as well as
attacking these inequalities using humour and expressive dialogue. Shakespeare reveals to his
audience the racial, religious and gender inequalities through the experiences of Shylock and
Portia in Elizabethan Venice. Shakespeare contrasts Portia against the men who retain power
over her, who have considerably less intelligence. Shylock is also given another layerthrough
the speeches he makes on equality, which is often hidden behind a veil of bitterness.

Portia is generally considered the de facto heroine of William

Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice, while the play’s
second-most prominent female character, Shylock’s daughter
Jessica, Portia is witty, confident, brave, and altruistic, and
Jessica is none of those things. Portia is also part of the main
plot, while Jessica’s marriage is an almost completely
unnecessary subplot. Why, then, was Jessica even included in
the play? Shakespeare may have intended Jessica’s insecurity,
irrationality, and selfishness to contrast with the apparent
perfection of Portia’s personality, but Jessica’s flaws instead
make her the more interesting character, because the other
characters’ perceptions of her are so varied.

Jessica doesn’t enter the story until the third scene of the second
act. She is introduced in a moment of kindness shown to her
household’s hired fool Launcelot, after he he has told her of his
plan to leave Shylock for the employment of a gentler master,
Bassanio. Her compliments to her former servant demonstrate
an understated wittiness; after stating “Our house is hell,” she
calls Launcelot a “merry devil”. Jessica speaks in poetry but
Launcelot replies in prose. After Launcelot exits with a letter
that Jessica has entrusted him to deliver, Jessica reveals her
own plans to run away in a brief monologue that also
demonstrates key aspects of her personality.

She starts by expressing multi-layered shame: “Alack, what

heinous sin is it in me / To be ashamed to be my father’s child!”
. However, she immediately justifies the first layer of shame —
 her shame of being ashamed — with a claim that she is too
different from Shylock to need to respect him as she was raised
to do: “But though I am a daughter to his blood / I am not to his
manners”. Jessica’s next couplet shows that she sees Lorenzo’s
“promise” as a means to escape her hellish household and “end
this strife.” She is doubtful that he will keep that promise, but
makes a promise of her own to become a “loving wife.” This
foreshadows a major complication of Jessica and Lorenzo’s
relationship: they frequently speak of their love for each other
either to other characters or directly to the audience, but they
rarely profess the extent of their mutual devotion in front of
each other.

This incredibly brief first scene sets the stage for the entirety of
Jessica’s role in the play, and introduces the audience to every
paradox of her character that makes her subplot so fascinating.
Jessica is kind, yet not unwilling to stand up for herself against
criticism; generous, yet not willing to sacrifice her own
happiness for that of anyone else; eager to become a Christian,
yet not religious; and untrusting, yet deeply in love with
Lorenzo. These contradictions are made manifest by other
characters in Merchant, who hold contradictory views of her, as
well as by her own expression of a conflicted self-perception.

Her father’s daughter

While the words “flesh” and “blood” appear more frequently

in The Merchant of Venice than in any other Shakespearean
play (Knapp, 2016), they are only used together to describe
familial relations twice: by the old Gobbo of his son Launcelot
(2.2.82), and by Shylock of Jessica (repeatedly in Act 3, Scene
1). However, there is some disagreement among Merchant’s
characters as to whether Jessica is enough like Shylock to be
truly “a daughter to his blood,” as Jessica herself stated in her
first appearance.

In the first scene of the play’s third act, Shylock expresses his
incredulity about Jessica’s rebellion to two of Lorenzo’s friends:
“My own flesh and blood to rebel!” (3.1.29). After Solanio scoffs
Shylock’s expectation that his grown child would remain loyal
forever (3.1.30), Shylock repeats: “I say my daughter is my flesh
and blood” (3.1.31). Salerio’s brilliant response echoes Jessica’s
own “daughter to his blood [but] not to his manners” sentiment
(2.3.17–18), yet concludes that not being to Shylock’s manners
makes Jessica literally not of the same flesh and blood.

Salerio says to Shylock, “There is more difference between thy

flesh and hers than between jet and ivory; more between your
bloods than there is between red wine and Rhenish” (3.1.32–
34). (Rhenish means German wine, which was presumably
always white in the early modern era.) This contrast drawn
between Shylock’s darkness and Jessica’s perceived lightness is
understood to be entirely figurative, referencing Jessica’s
personality instead of her appearance and race. However,
Salerio’s designation of Jessica as light instead of dark is
interesting because of the two major female characters in the
play, Jessica is darker in her particular brand of femininity as
well as in hair color.

Gentle, but not a gentile; Jessica’s religion and

identity

Upon close inspection, the last lines of Jessica’s speech in Act 2,

Scene 3 appear to reveal a carelessness about religion which
contrasts with most other characters’ perceptions of her
religiosity. Jessica states that she’ll “become a Christian” if she
marries Lorenzo; someone who intends to convert for spiritual
reasons would probably view herself as already a Christian, but
Jessica only aims for the legal and societal inclusion that a
marriage to a Christian man would offer her. She understands
that her Jewish identity makes her a social outcast, and she’s
not devoutly Jewish enough to pass up an opportunity to shed
it. However, it is not clear whether Jessica believes Jews to be
outcasts due to religion or to lineage. Jessica may intend to use
religion and marriage as a loophole in Venice’s sociopolitical
structure built to prevent any people of Jewish heritage from
entering the society of the gentiles.

The divide between Jews and Christians in Merchant is usually

viewed as either more religious or more racial by different
characters in the play, but we can only infer their individual
opinions from their treatment of Jessica. Some of these
opinions are very mixed, such as that of the truly foolish fool
Launcelot expressed in Act 3, Scene 5. Launcelot claims to base
his prejudice on religion, but he believes Jessica will suffer
eternal damnation because “the sins of the father are to be laid
upon the children” — meaning that for Launcelot, religion (and
therefore salvation) is actually heritable instead of ideological.

The higher-class characters in Merchant wouldn’t tell Jessica

that she’s going to hell for having a Jewish father. In fact, it is
interesting to note that Lorenzo believes Shylock might end up
in heaven because of his daughter’s goodness (2.4.36–37).
However, although these characters state that Jessica is nothing
like Shylock, their praise to her still suggests that they view the
divide between Jews and Christians as a racial or class
distinction; Salerio’s insistence that Jessica’s “flesh and blood”
is so different from Shylock’s (3.1.32–34) is only one case of a
character rationalizing Jessica’s move into Christian society on
the basis of her differences from other Jews. Lorenzo and his
friends also frequently refer to Jessica with a possible pun on
the word “gentle.” Lorenzo uses the word interchangeably with
“wise” and “fair” every time he speaks of Jessica, but it is likely
to be a double entendre in Gratiano’s comment uttered after
first meeting Jessica, “Now by my hood, a gentle and no Jew”
(2.3.54).

As the scholar Janet Adelman notes, “If the crucial distinction

for her is religious, the crucial distinction for [other characters]
is of blood lineage. But this much Graziano’s initial riddling
praise of her as ‘a gentle, and no Jew’ might have told her, for
his praise turns out to allow her escape from the category of Jew
only insofar as she can change her blood or nation, becoming
not a Jew but a gentile. As Graziano’s word slides between
‘gentle’ and ‘gentile’ . . . it enters the territory of what we might
agree to call a proto-racial distinction” (Adelman 74).

I disagree with Adelman that the “crucial distinction” for Jessica

is religious, due to the reasoning I detailed in the opening
paragraph of this section; I would instead argue that Jessica is
hardly religious at all, but has made an intelligent decision to
cast off her status as an outcast by claiming to change her
religion. Rather than converting to Christianity to marry
Lorenzo, Jessica might be marrying Lorenzo to “become a
Christian.” The worst fate that the more ideologically Jewish
Shylock could imagine for his daughter and his money — “fled
with a Christian, O my Christian ducats!” — is instead Jessica’s
aspiration.

Flight

The most controversial of Jessica’s actions is the apparent

selfishness of her “flight” from Shylock’s household (specifically
referred to as such with an extended metaphor involving wings
and birds in Act 3, Scene 1). Everyone in the play who knows
Shylock, except the villain himself and his friend Tubal, sees
Jessica’s decision to run away with Lorenzo just as she saw it in
Act 2, Scene 3: a necessary course of action to “end [her] strife.”
Even Launcelot, despite his aforementioned disapproval of
Jews’ conversion to Christianity, attempts to aid Jessica in her
escape from their shared master by relaying Lorenzo’s message
the last time he sees Shylock (Act 2, Scene 5). However, multiple
noted scholars of Shakespeare have opined that it was morally
wrong for Jessica to leave Shylock, including Peggy Knapp
(lecture, 2016) and Heinrich Heine (“Jessica,” published 1895).

Both Knapp and Heine agree that Jessica’s theft of a turquoise

ring of more sentimental than monetary value to Shylock and
her (alleged) exchange of it for a pet monkey is the most
inexcusable of Jessica’s actions, although it’s possible that she
had no idea of the ring’s personal significance when she chose to
steal it. Indeed, Shylock’s lament to Tubal after learning of the
ring’s loss (3.1.102–104) is one of his few sympathetic moments
in the play. He reveals that the ring was a memento of his
deceased wife and Jessica’s mother, Leah — in fact, Leah gave it
to him before their marriage (“when I was a bachelor,” 3.1.103)
in much the same way that Portia gives Bassanio another
symbolic ring. As Bassanio’s loss of Portia’s ring accompanies
Portia’s loss of profound respect for him, so Jessica’s loss of
Leah’s ring accompanies Shylock’s loss of love for his daughter.

But did Shylock ever love Jessica in the first place? According to
Heinrich Heine, yes. Heine argues that “Shylock loves money,
but there are things which he loves more, among others his
daughter, ‘Jessica, my child.’ Though he curses her in the
greatest passion of wrath, and would fain see her dead at his
feet, with the jewels in her ears and with the ducats in her coffin,
he still loves her more than all ducats and jewels. Excluded from
public life and Christian society, and forced into the narrow
consolation of domestic happiness, there remain to the poor
Jew only family feelings, and these come forth from him with
the most touching tenderness.”

However, Shylock shows very little tenderness toward Jessica

herself. In Jessica’s first scene, she claimed to be living in a
“house of hell.” This may be a teenager’s hyperbole or an
expression of boredom, but may also refer to legitimate familial
dysfunction. Merchant does not contain enough scenes of
interaction between Shylock and Jessica for the audience to
determine whether Shylock is definitely abusive, but their
conversation in the one scene of this (Act 2, Scene 5) is at least
symptomatic of emotional abuse. Shylock intentionally isolates
Jessica from the outside world, forbidding her to even look out
the window at a Christian parade when he leaves the house.
Heine’s analysis of Shylock as more focused on his family (and
money) due to his exclusion from society may be accurate, but
Shylock is still not justified in making his daughter’s isolation
even more extreme.

If Shylock is as abusive to his daughter as he was to his servant

Launcelot, Jessica’s “flight” is definitely justified. However,
abuse is not the only possible justification for Jessica’s
departure; well-intentioned but badly executed parenting can
make a house just as hellish as emotional abuse does. As
Stephanie Chidester notes, “Jessica’s behavior is not altogether
surprising when one considers Shylock’s treatment of her.
Shylock shows his daughter little affection or kindness — she is
his flesh and blood and therefore an extension of himself, not a
person in her own right.”

In conclusion, Jessica’s flight from Shylock was only as selfish

as that of a bird from its cage; the bird does not worry about
leaving its trapper lonely. Jessica had respected her father’s
feelings all her life, but he gave little in return. You cannot
expect a bird to remain on its perch when someone opens its
cage and offers it a chance to escape. However, regardless of
how badly you might have treated your bird throughout its
confinement, it’s probably not justified in snatching up your
deceased wife’s turquoise ring before flying out the window.

Jessica and Lorenzo were true lover as Jessica left her house and father for him even when
she knows that he is christian and her father hates them. Lorenzo also knows that she is a
daughter of a cruel person who don't kind on anyone and finding a way to take revenge from
his one of the friends i.e., Antonio.
They always give example about the other lover who couldn't get a true lover in their life like
Thisbe, Dido and Medea.

Jessica was annoyed of her father and started hating all the Jews and loved a Christian.

In the reference Lorenzo say that on this beautiful night Troilus climbed on the wall of the
Troy and sighed for Cressida in the greek lamp.

Jessica says that Thisbe saw the lion's shadow and ran away when his lover came he saw her
blood stained cloak and thought she is dead so he kill himself and when she returns saw her
lovers body she too kills herself. This shows that they both love each other but couldn't get
their love alive. Lorenzo and Jessica feels lucky to be united in this life.

Then they talk about Dido who loves her lover too much but he doesn't he left her and ran
away. She gets a deserted love and hold a willow in her hand while standing on sea shore to
give signal to her lover to come back to her.

Even in this night Medea gathered herbs for old Aeson to make him young again.

They discuss about all these people because Jessica had became sad as she was listening to
the music she tells Lorenzo that she feels sad when ever she hear music. So to distract her
mind from their and make her happy Lorenzo starts discussing about all the lovers. This
shows that how much they love each other and care about each other.

Jessica is the daughter of Shylock, a Jewish moneylender, in William Shakespeare's The

Merchant of Venice . In the play, she elopes with Lorenzo, a pennyless Christian, and a
chest of her father's money, eventually ending up in Portia and Bassanio's household. In the
play's dramatic structure, Jessica is a minor but pivotal role. Her actions motivate Shylock's
vengeful insistence on his "pound of flesh" from Antonio; her relationships with Lorenzo and
Shylock serves as a mirror and contrast to Portia's with Bassanio and with her father; her
conversion to Christianity is the end of Shylock's line's adherence to the Jewish faith.
Literary critics have historically viewed the character negatively, highlighting her theft of her
father's gold, her betrayal of his trust, and apparently selfish motivations and aimless
behaviour. Since the end of the 20th century their views have been more moderate and
nuanced, pointing to an alternate reading that allows her actions to be motivated by love and
generosity, and being driven by Shylock's own tyrannical and immoral behaviour.
Role in the play
The role of Jessica is a relatively minor one. She speaks a grand total of 660 words over the
play's five acts. In the dramatic structure of the play, the role is, however, pivotal, her
elopement with Lorenzo, and her father's casket of Ducats, motivates Shylock's
vengefulness towards Antonio. she serves as a mirror highlighting the differences between
Shylock's Jewish household and Portia's Christian one; and serves as the means by which
Shylock is forcibly converted to Christianity.

Her first appearance on stage is in Act 2, Scene 3, in a brief scene with Launcelot Gobbo.
Gobbo is leaving Shylock's service to give his allegiance to Bassiano, and Jessica bemoans
the loss of his company in a household that is "hell". She speeds him along, to avoid her
father seeing their interaction, with a Ducat as a parting gift and a letter to Lorenzo. After
Gobbo leaves, she muses to herself on what flaws are in her character that makes her
ashamed to be her father's daughter, and that although she is related to him by blood she is
alienated by his manners. She concludes the soliloquy determined to marry Lorenzo and
converting to Christianity.
Hear you me, Jessica, Lock up my doors, and when you hear the drum And the vile
squealing of the wry-necked fife, Clamber not you up to the casements then, Nor thrust your
head into the public street To gaze on Christian fools with varnished faces, But stop my
house's ears (I mean my casements). Let not the sound of shallow fopp'ry enter My sober
house.
In Act 2, Scene 4, Gobbo bears the letter, containing Jessica's plans to elope with Lorenzo
and as much of her father's valuables as she can find, to Lorenzo. He is pleased by the letter
and its contents, and bids Gobbo return to let her know that he has received the letter and
will not fail her. In Act 2, Scene 5, however, Gobbo is intercepted by Shylock, who berates
him for his change of allegiance. Gobbo seizes on Shylock's repeated mentions of Jessica's
name as a pretense to call her. When she arrives, Shylock gives her the keys to his house
and the responsibility of keeping it safe while he dines with Antonio and Bassanio. Upon
learning there will be a masquerade, he enjoins her to shutter the windows and not "gaze on
Christian fools with varnished faces". He then bids Gobbo precede him to let Antonio and
Bassanio know he will attend their dinner. Having no other option, Gobbo whispers to
Jessica to "look out at window for all this. / There will come a Christian by / Will be worth a
Jewess' eye."[12] before leaving. Shylock catches the interaction and asks Jessica what
Gobbo said, but Jessica deceives him and claims he was simply saying goodbye. Shylock
then complains of Gobbo's sloth and vociferous appetite, claiming he is well rid of him and
glad he now serves Bassiano, whom he dislikes. He leaves for the dinner, and Jessica
soliloquises:
Farewell, and if my fortune be not crossed, I have a father, you a daughter,
lost.
— Jessica, The Merchant of Venice[13]

I am glad 'tis night, you do not look on me, For I am much ashamed of my exchange. But
love is blind, and lovers cannot see The pretty follies that themselves commit, For if they
could, Cupid himself would blush
To see me thus transformèd to a boy.
Jessica, The Merchant of Venice[14]
In the following scene—Act 2, Scene 6—Lorenzo and his friends come to Shylock's house,
and Jessica greets them from a window, dressed as a boy. She asks Lorenzo to confirm his
identity before lowering a casket of her father's Ducats. Lorenzo bids her descend, but
Jessica demurs, ashamed of her disguise. Lorenzo persuades her, and she goes inside to
bring more of Shylock's Ducats. Lorenzo praises her to his friends: "For she is wise, if I can
judge of her, / And fair she is, if that mine eyes be true, / And true she is, as she hath proved
herself. / And therefore, like herself, wise, fair, and true,".[15] She joins them on the street
and all but Lorenzo's friend Gratiano leaves. Antonio then arrives to tell Gratiano that the
winds are propitious for sailing and that Bassanio is leaving immediately for Belmont to woo
Portia. Gratiano expresses his desire to leave the city immediately.
Jessica next appears at Belmont in Act 3, Scene 2, accompanying Lorenzo and Salerio, a
messenger delivering a letter to Bassiano from Antonio. The letter informs him that all
Antonio's business ventures have failed, such that he has defaulted on the bond to Shylock,
and that Shylock intends to collect on the "pound of flesh". Jessica informs them that she
has heard her father speaking with his fellows, saying he "would rather have Antonio's flesh /
Than twenty times the value of the sum / That he did owe him."[16] Portia dispatches
Bassanio to Venice to assist his friend, pausing only long enough for them to be married.
Then announces that she and Nerissa, her maid, will stay in a nearby convent while their
husbands are away. In her absence she asks Lorenzo and Jessica to manage her estate.
In Act 3, Scene 5, Jessica and Gobbo banter in the gardens of Belmont; Gobbo claiming that
she is tainted by the sins of her father, and she can only hope that she was an illegitimate
child and not actually related to Shylock. Jessica protests that then she would be visited by
the sins of her mother, and Gobbo concurs that she would be damned either way. Jessica
argues that she has been saved by her husband who has converted her to Christianity, to
which Gobbo replies that Bassanio of contributing to the raised price of pork by the
conversion of Jews (who may not eat pork) to Christians (who do). Lorenzo joins them and
Jessica recounts their conversation, leading to further banter between Lorenzo and Gobbo,
until Gobbo leaves to prepare for dinner. In response to questioning by Lorenzo, Jessica
praises Portia as great and peerless.
Act 5, Scene 1—the final scene of the play, and following on from the courtroom scene in
Act 4—opens with Jessica and Lorenzo strolling in the gardens of Belmont. They exchange
romantic metaphors, invoking in turn characters from classical literature: Troilus and
Criseyde, Pyramus and Thisbē, Aeneas and Dido, Jason and Medea, and finally themselves
in the same mode, until they are interrupted by Stephano, a messenger. No sooner has
Stephano informed them that Portia and Nerissa will soon arrive than Gobbo comes with the
same news for Bassanio and Gratiano. They decide to await the arrivals in the gardens, and
ask Stephano to fetch his instrument and play for them.
The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not moved with concord of sweet
sounds, Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils;
— Lorenzo, The Merchant of Venice[17]

Portia and Nerissa enter, followed shortly by Bassanio, Antonio, and Gratiano. After they are
all reunited, Nerissa hands Lorenzo a deed of gift from Shylock, won in the trial, giving
Jessica all of his wealth upon his death.
Lorenzo is a Christian young man who is able somehow to capture the heart of Jessica, the
daughter of Shylock the Jew. He seems to be a smart and dashing young man with a
handsome appearance and an active mind. He must, of course, have taken the initiative in
making Jessica’s acquaintance and then’ winning her heart. Indeed, for a Christian
to win the heart of a Jewish girl in those days was like , conquering a fort or a citadel
because of the bitter antagonism which existed between the two races. Lorenzo may be
regarded as a romantic hero, though on a much smaller scale than Bassanio.
An Adventurous man, Truly in Love, But Not Very Scrupulous
Lorenzo is an adventurous young man and is prepared to face danger for the sake of his
love. He readily agrees to Jessica’s plan to run away from home and join him when he would
be leading a masked procession through the city streets at the time of night. No timid young
man can take such a risk. Lorenzo shows himself to be a fearless young man willing to take
risks for the sake of the girl with whom he has fallen in love. Nor does he discourage Jessica
from stealing as much of her father’s money and jewels as she can. There is certainly a
worldly and even mercenary ingredient in his love for Jessica. Beautiful she is; sincere she
also seems to be; and she is wise too. If, in addition to being fair, wise, and sincere in her
love, she can also bring a rich dowry with her, so much the better. Such is • Lorenzo’s line of
reasoning with regard to Jessica. Money is welcome to him, just as it is welcome to
Bassanio. But we must also acknowledge the fact that Lorenzo is lacking in moral scruple. A
strictly conscientious man would not have encouraged Jessica to run away from home with
him because the whole affair would most probably be regarded as a case of a Christian
young man’s abduction of a Jewish girl. But, in the Elizabethan age, such conduct on the
part of Christian in luring a Jewish girl away from her home and her father was thought to be
a commendable action rather than an immoral or obnoxious one.
His Sense of Humour; His Wit; His Artistic Temperament
Lorenzo has a keen sense of humour and also a capacity for making witty remarks. When
Gratiano describes the silent kind of man, Lorenzo says that he certainly belongs to the
class of such silent men because Gratiano himself talks so much that he does not allow him
(Lorenzo) to talk at all. “I must be one of these same dumb wise men”, says Lorenzo. He
also gives evidence of his wit when he tells his- friends that, when their turn comes to meet
their beloveds, he would wait for them with the same patience which they have shown in
waiting for him. Besides being a witty man, Lorenzo has an artistic nature which he reveals
in the moonlight scene at Belmont when, in the course of his conversation with Jessica, he
recalls the love-affairs of Cressida and Dido, and describes them in a most fanciful
manner.in that scene, he speaks in a poetical style of which he gives further evidence when
he describes the music of the spheres and the effect of music on animals and on human
beings.
His Praise of Antonio; and Portia’s Favourable Impression of Him
Lorenzo expresses a high opinion about Antonio, telling Portia that Antonio is a true
gentleman and a dear friend of Bassanio. He also wins Portia’s confidence by his apparent
good nature and trustworthiness. Portia leaves her house and her property in his charge
when she leaves Belmont to preside over the legal proceedings in a Venetian court of law.
Lorenzo is a good judge of character too. He not only appreciates the character of a fine
gentleman like Antonio and a lovable young woman, namely Jessica, but also understands
the temperament and nature of the clown, Launcelot. He rightly calls Launcelot a wit-
snapper’. and says that the fool hath planted in his memory an army of good words”, He
correctly perceives the fact that Launcelot tries to amuse him and others by his punning and
his persistent play upon words. .

A Likeable Young Man, Romantic and Witty

On the whole, Lorenzo is a very likable young man who contributes greatly to the romantic
atmosphere of the play by his love-affair with Jessica and who contributes also to the
comedy of the play by his wit and humour.

6666

Launcelot Gobbo is the servant, first of the Jew, and later of the Christian Bassanio. But he is
not merely a servant. Shakespeare describes him as a clown, meaning that he is a jester too.
The word “fool” is also used for a person of that kind in Shakespearean drama. As a clown or
a fool or a jester, Launcelot Gobbo makes a substantial contribution to the comedy of this
play. However, he is not as clever and intellectual a clown as certain other clowns created by
Shakespeare.
His Low, Cheap, Crude, and Farcical Kind of Humour
Much of the humour of Launcelot’s talk is of a crude and farcical kind; and the same is true
of his behaviour and conduct. Hi£ fooling of his aged and blind father is not only crude and
farcical but also in very bad taste. He tells his father that the young master Launcelot has
died. This sort of thing fills us with disgust. It is all right for him to use his father to get a job
under Bassanio; but to put up a pretence that he is dead means giving a shock to an old man
who might not have been able to bear to shock. Indeed, Launcelot’s sense of humour in this
particular episode is very cheap and Low. And, even in using his father to aid him in getting a
job under Bassanio, he behaves in a manner which seems to us to be stupid and grotesque. He
first prompts his father to say something and then he interrupts his father when the old man
begins to say what he has been prompted to say. Every sentence begun by the old man is
interrupted by his young son who then completes that sentence. This sort of thing certainly
amused the groundlings in those times and had its utility from the point of view of public
entertainment; but from the literary and artistic point of view this kind of humour ranks very
low.
His Capacity to Make Truly Witty Remarks
A better example of Launcelot’s sense of humour is to be found in the conflict which is going
on in his mind and which he describes in a really amusing manner. The conflict is between
his desire to get a job under Bassanio and his conscience which stands in the way of his
quitting the Jew’s service. While his conscience does not permit him to quit the Jew’s
service, the fiend or the devil urges him to quit this job and seek one under Bassanio. The
devil urges him to run away from Shylock’s house, while his conscience urges him to scorn
running, and to remain loyal to his present master. Later in the play, Launcelot shows that he
is also capable of making truly witty remarks. When Jessica informs him that her husband has
converted her to Christianity, Launcelot makes a truly witty remark by saying that this
making of Christians would raise the price of hogs, and by going on to say that, if all the Jews
turn Christians and begin eating pork, there would not be a single slice of bacon available in
the market at any price. He also shows his wit in using words in a double sense. His talent at
punning makes Lorenzo call him “wit-snapper”; and Lorenzo then tells Jessica that this fool
“has planted an army of good words in his mind”, and that he uses those words when
occasion demands. Launcelot is also capable of making intelligent remarks indicative of a
certain measure of wisdom. For instance, lie says to Bassanio: “You have the grace of God,
sir, and he (Shylock) hath enough” On the whole, his humour and wit may be described as an
interesting mixture of various elements.
Not Devoid of Sentiment: His Affection for Jessica
Launcelot is not devoid of feeling or sentiment. While leaving Jessica after having given up
his job under Shylock, he becomes quite sentimental, and his eyes fill with tears. He is
evidently attached to Jessica who also has a good deal of liking for him. He is glad to have
got a job under the large-hearted Bassanio, but he is sorry to lose the company of Jessica.
His Manifold, But Flimsy, Role in the Play
Launcelot’s role in the play, apart from his contribution to the comedy of the play, is very
slight. He does a service to Jessica by carrying a letter from her to her lover, Lorenzo. He also
does a service to her by telling her indirectly that a masked procession would go through the
streets at night. Later, he goes to Belmont in the company of his new master, Bassanio; and
still later he conveys to Lorenzo and Jessica the information that his master Bassanio would
be returning to Belmont at an early hour in the morning. He also serves to emphasize the
contrast between the miserliness of Shylock service he is famished (that is, starving), while
Lord Bassanio gives rare liveries to his servants. He is also brought into the Bond story
because it is he who goes to Shylock with an invitation from Bassanio, asking Shylock to
dine with him at the feast which Bassanio has arranged for his friends on the eve of his
departure for Belmont. In fact, Launcelot appears at different places and among different
persons on different occasions. He moves from Venice to Belmont, and from Belmont to
Venice. He moves from the Jew’s house to Bassanio’s, and from Bassanio’s house to the
Jew’s. He figures in the Lorenzo- Jessica love-affair, in the Caskets story, and also in the
Bond story, though he does not play any vital part in any of these stories. By moving from
one place to another and from one group of characters tc another, he contributes, in some
measure, to the interweaving of the various stories in the play. In othe: words, he serves as a
connecting-link among the various stories. But his chief contribution to the play is to amuse
and entertain the audience (and the readers). This is how a critic describes his role in the play:
“Shakespeare, always careful about the knitting of a play into unity, links Launcelot to the
Jew, to Lorenzo, and to Jessica; and then, having bound him up with the Jew, binds him up
with the Caskets story. He sends him to Belmont as one of Bassanio’ servants.”

When Bassanio chooses the correct casket and wins Portia as his wife, Portia slips a
ring on his finger and makes a big speech about how she and everything she owns
is now his property:
Myself and what is mine to you and yours
Is now converted: but now I was the lord
Of this fair mansion, master of my servants,
Queen o'er myself: and even now, but now,
This house, these servants and this same myself
Are yours, my lord: I give them with this ring;
Which when you part from, lose, or give away,
Let it presage the ruin of your love
And be my vantage to exclaim on you. (3.2.170-178)
Okay, fine. The ring is a symbol of Portia's love and commitment, and if Bassanio
doesn't keep it on his finger, he's in big trouble. Bassanio says he's fine with this and
promises that "when this ring / Parts from this finger, then parts life from hence"
(3.2.187-188). No surprise here—couples have been exchanging rings for centuries.
Yet this ring also seems to symbolize much more. In "Portia's Ring: Unruly Women
and Structures of Exchange in The Merchant of Venice," literary critic Karen
Newman notes that, at first, the ring seems to represent Portia's submission to her
soon-to-be husband and her willingness to become subservient when she marries
(25). Note: Legally, in the 16th century, marriage made a man master over his wife
and her property, which Portia acknowledges in her big speech.
Yet when Portia gives Bassanio the ring (and all of her worldly possessions and
property), she also puts herself in a position of power, because she's giving her
soon-to-be husband more than he can possibly give her in return (Newman, 26).
After all these dramatic declarations, we know what's bound to happen to that ring,
right? Especially in light of Bassanio's questionable sincerity. (After all, his sole
reason for traveling to Belmont is to snag a rich wife who will help him get out of
debt. Portia is most definitely his meal ticket.)
Sure enough, Bassanio parts with the ring when Portia (disguised as a Balthazar)
tricks him into giving it up as a token of appreciation after "Balthazar" saves
Antonio's life (4.1). Hmm. What does all of this say about the couple's relationship
and Antonio's commitment to it?
Portia also makes Bassanio beholden to her when she confronts him with the ring he
willingly gave to "Balthazar." This isn't the only time Portia gets a leg up in the play.
When, for example, she saves Antonio's life, she arranges it so that her
husband and his best friend owe her more than they could ever repay.

The wedding ring Portia gives Bassanio seal their love in marriage and
symbolizes power. The ring seems to represent Portia's submission to Bassanio.
By giving him the ring not only does she submit herself, all of her worldly
possessions and property, she also puts herself in a position of power; because
she's giving her soon-to-be husband more than he can possibly give her in
return. This comes a huge relief to Bassonia as he owes Antonia a great debt
and is pretty much penniless without Portia's wealth. When Antonio is unable to
pay Shylock back his debt, Portia tricks everyone by dressing up like a male
lawyer. She craftily uses the law to keep Shylock from cutting off a pound of
Antonio's flesh and steals Shylock's wealth, claiming he's an illegal immigrant. In
payment for her services, the disguised Portia asks Bassanio for a ring she had
given him in Belmont on the condition that he would never part with it. In
payment for her services, the disguised Portia asks Bassanio for a ring she had
given him in Belmont on the condition that he would never part with it. He
refuses, and she storms off in pretended anger. Antonio, however, prevails upon
his friend to send the ring after the doctor for “his” services to them; Bassanio
sends Gratiano, who also gives up the ring Nerissa gave him, with the same
stipulation, to the clerk. Later, she happily reveals to her husband her devious
and successful plan. The ring symbolizes Portia's power and control, not only in
civil matters but also in her marriage relationship.