Scott

Jacob Scott
ENGL 441
Dr. Kelly
12 / 7 / 18

Cover Letter

My paper has drastically changed since the first draft of it in many different

ways. There is now just as many new sentences in my paper than there was before,

if not more. I have been suggested to analyze the language within my quotes more

closely, and to address things such as poetic devices and literary devices that can be

helpful to my argument. I have also decided to make my thesis more clear and make

it present in just about every single paragraph throughout the paper.

The language in almost every single quote that I use now gets very closely

analyzed, and then I relate it back to the play as a whole and to how it supports my

thesis. I have now analyzed and expanded on the effect of each quote I use, and how

the literary devices I chose help my argument. I found out that I was ignoring ‘block

quoting’ all together and so I had to make changes to just about every single quote in

my paper. I have changed all my quotes to correct MLA block quote form, due to the

fact that all my quotes besides maybe one are all four lines or longer, and therefore

have to be block quotes. In my revision for my final version of my paper I have

added all my secondary scholarly sources, and then some. Instead of using only

three secondary scholarly sources I decided to use five in order to make the paper

have a more casual conversational flow, and to enhance the weight of my thesis.

Every single word or idea that has been added since the draft version of the

paper have been typed in the color blue. I chose this color because it is the easiest to

read while still being able to see all the drastic new changes in the paper.
 Scott

Jacob Scott
ENGL 441
Dr. Kelly
10 / 25 / 18
The Value of Family (Term Paper)

When looking at a daughter’s relationship with their father, or even just

simply a relationship between any parent and any child, one can become quickly

aware of the fact that their can be a clash of personalities as forceful as two rams

going head to head. If there is a strong disagreement about the preference of a

particular life style, but a strong agreement about what is truly valuable, there can

be something quite problematic at hand. When a parent and child hold no sense of

respect for one another, it is only natural for them to transfer their respect to an

abstract idea, something so intangible, such as pride, reputation, religion, and

wealth. This is utterly sad concept is evident in William Shakespeare’s play The

Merchant of Venice when examining the language and actions of the father-daughter

relationship between Shylock and Jessica. The unfortunate reality of the play is that

both of these characters value their wealth and their religion far more than they

value their own family bond.

Jessica appears to come off as a selfish young adult who dreams of

abandoning her own father in order to enhance her own status. She lacks reasoning

and comes off as very hyperbolic when the audience is first introduced to her when

she says to Lancelot:

 Scott

I am sorry thou wilt leave my father so. / Our house is hell, and thou a merry

devil / Didst rob it of some taste of tediousness. / But fare the well: there is a

ducat to thee (II.3.1-4).

The audience here is already forced to label her character as someone who has

absolutely no regard for reality or anyone beside herself, and is under the

impression that money can solve everything. The use of two metaphors within one

single line emphasizes the extent of Jessica’s misery. These lines show how

hyperbolic Jessica truly is, and reveals that religion and love are more powerful than

anything else in existence in the eyes of Jessica. It is clear here that she turns to her

wealth for comfort once she is done with the thoughts of her Jewish father, who she

obviously sees as an evil man. This idea continues and grows even more hateful in

the final passage of act two scene three when Jessica says to Lancelot:

Alak, what heinous sin is it in me to be ashamed to be my father’s child! But

though I am a daughter to his blood I am not to his manner. O Lorenzo, if

thou keep promise, I shall end this strife, become a Christian and thy loving

wife (II.3.15-20).

Jessica is a rather simplistic character due to the fact that she remains in a constant

state of desire and fantasy. The fact that these last two lines end in perfect rhyme is

a representation of how lightly Jessica is taking the situation. The tone of the perfect

rhyming gives off a sense that Jessica doesn’t honestly care about her sinful thoughts

and actions, and that her mind is constantly focused on her fantasy fairytale of a life.

These words prove that Jessica is obviously a self-loathing Jew who is unhesitant to

choose status and acceptance over family. She chooses money over real true love.
 Scott

She chooses instinct or reason, and she chooses desire over loyalty. Jessica’s

reflection of what it means to sin, and what it means to be someone’s child is called

into question again because of his religion. It is almost as though she is categorizing

her situation into animal traits versus human traits. She portrays her father,

Shylock, as being an animal simply because he is Jewish (blood), and compares him

to herself, who claims she has better “manners” because of her desires to convert to

Christianity (human). However, in actuality all that is happening here in this case is

that she wants to form to a more popular crowd, and define her own reality by

consciously choosing faith, status, and acceptance over her own family bond.

It appears that Jessica is the mastermind behind the downfall of her own

father when her lover Lorenzo tells Gratiano:

She hath directed how I shall take her from her father’s house, what gold and

jewels she is furnished with, what page’s suit she hath in readiness (II.5.29-

32).

Jessica is literally using her own father to enhance her wealth, and if it was not for

his wealth she would have had absolutely no reason to abandon him sooner than

she already did. She views her own blood as just some Jew she can use as a means to

become rich. These lines shine light on the idea that Jessica is nothing more than an

adjunct to her family and uses her family as means to become wealthy. In an article

written by Anita Gilman Sherman, she comments on the reality of this when she

states, “In short, Jessica’s departure confronts Shylock with their separateness from

each other. He has hitherto considered her an appendage like the pound of flesh he

proposes to gouge out of Antonio.” (Sherman). She acts, and is seen as nothing more
 Scott

but a piece of flesh that is holding her father back from getting his revenge, and is

simply taking what he values most, and giving nothing but disloyalty. Clearly she is

so incapable of thinking morally and logically for herself that it causes her to follow

the masses and willingly abandon everything she has ever known.

It is truly fighting how utterly shallow some individuals can appear to be

within this play this idea of Jessica being a “social status climber” happens to

become very evident in the final two lines of act two scene five when she is alone on

stage and says, “Farwell, and if my fortune be not crossed, / I have a father, you a

daughter, lost” (II.5.54-55). These two short lines show the extent to what Jessica is

willing to sacrifice in order to convert to her religion of choice. The value of religion

comes far before the value of family in the eyes of Jessica. She will gain “a father” in

heaven from abandoning her true biological father, and her father Shylock will be

left with nothing, not even his family, money, jewels, or home. These harsh words

spoken from Shylock’s daughter are really alluding to Shylock’s ultimate demise

because Jessica is a representation and a symbol for literally everything he has left

to his name, including his sanity and purpose for staying alive. For Jessica to say

such horrible words about her only family is difficult to grasp, but it suggests that

her value of religion and wealth far surpass the value she holds for the man who

gave her life.

From the beginning of the play until the very end of the play Jessica is

constantly searching for ways to become more accepted in the eyes of everyone

besides her father, and always feels the need to impress the common religion with

wealth and self denial. Even when Shylock’s daughter is not deliberately stating that
 Scott

she holds higher respect for religion, wealth, and her own pride than she does for

her father, we still see the idea play out in more subtle ways. For instance, the

audience might catch notice to this idea when she says to Lorenzo:

Here, catch this casket, it is worth the pains. 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 transformed to a boy (II.6.34-40).

These lines that Jessica says to her lover as they are planning to elope are symbolic

of the fact that Jessica is never content with her own self. It is extremely symbolic

because here she is denying her true self by becoming a boy, just like she is denying

her true self by denouncing her faith and becoming a Christian, just like she is

denying the amount of wealth she would receive when her father dies by taking all

of it before he is even lying among the deceased. Within these lines Jessica uses

personification to personify love in order to show her compassionate side, but in

reality she is only revealing her true character as a shallow, entitled rich daughter.

She shows the audience that in the act of robbing and abandoning her own father

she still fails to even think of what she is doing to her own family and herself. She is

only focused on the safety of the riches and on how she looks. This shows how

Jessica in fact values her money and appearance over the life of her only family.

Although Shylock’s daughter is the most ungrateful, hateful, and greedy

offspring one could have, Shylock is in no position to receive any pity or guilt due to

the fact that he cares about his money, jewels, and religion just as much, if not more

than his only child. This is stated confidently by the critic Cary B. Graham when he
 Scott

writes, “Shylock’s reaction to the elopement and the robbery, as reported in II. viii,

by Salanio, emphasizes about equally the father’s loss of his daughter and his loss of

ducats and jewels;” (Graham). Here, Graham makes a valid point considering this is

most certainly evident when he is discussing his stolen riches to Tubal and says:

The curse never fell upon our nation until now, I never felt it till now. Two

thousand ducats in that, and other precious, precious jewels! I would my

daughter were dead at my foot, and the jewels in her ear: would she were

hearsed at my foot, and the ducats in her coffin (III.1.67-71).

Shylock has in fact just admitted that he literally values his ducats more than he

values his own daughter’s life. Despite what he daughter has done to him and his

legacy, it is a pure evil statement for any man to say that about any of his family

members, especially his daughter. In an article by Mary Janell Metzger, she suggest

the reason why Shylock is so baleful is solely due to the fact that she is converting to

another religion besides Judaism when she writes, “Like Othello, Shylock’s inspires

feeling about his fate only insofar as he is capable of choosing Christian “goodness.”

Moreover, Shylock’s malevolence depends on the shifting inscription of Jessica as

racial Jew and freely choosing Christian.” (Metzger). It is sincerely saddening and

sickening to envision ones own father choosing his riches over his own child’s life,

and therefore these lines make it rather difficult for anyone to willingly jump to

Shylock’s defense. This idea is very much extended when looking at John Picker’s

article titled Shylock and the Struggle for Closure when he writes, “Clearly, Shylock

values the “turquoise” that Leah gave him before their marriage, for the loss of the

ring represents Jessica’s paramount crime, the news of which actually goes so far as
 Scott

to “torture” him.”(Picker). Through Picker’s analysis of Shylocks character it

becomes obvious that Shylock enjoys the presence of a material object that reminds

him of his deceased wife far more than he enjoys the existence of his only daughter

who was birthed from that very same lady. He would rather have an expensive

object that reminds him of his wife than a living being that he has given life to, a

human that has actual characteristics of his dead wife. It is as if Shylock would give

his life for his possessions, but wouldn’t give his life to save his daughter’s. In an

article by Bill Overton he expands on this argument by claiming Shylock’s has a

problem that lies in the nature of his character when he writes, “Third, Shylock

denies natural human feelings. Not only do Jessica and Lancelot leave him, but, as

John Russell Brown observes, ‘nowhere in the play does Shylock show any

tenderness towards his daughter.’ His mingled lament for daughter and ducats is a

case in point… Shakespeare chose not to present Shylock’s first grief directly but

through Salerio and Solanio’s mockery. The effect may be to devalue the impact of

his suffering. (Overton). With this in mind, it is easy for one to argue that the

innocent victim role that has been bestowed upon Shylock’s character is simply no

more than an illusion. Shylock and Jessica are both equally guilty of valuing jewels,

money, religion, and self pride far more than the feelings of others, including their

only family. Shylock’s extreme sense of pride and denial for natural human feelings

is brought to light again when Jessica says to Portia:

When I was with him, I have heard him swear to Tubal and to Chus, his

countrymen, that he would rather have Antonio’s flesh than twenty times the
 Scott

value of the sum that he did owe him; and I know, my lord, if law, authority,

and power, deny not it will go hard with poor Antonio (III.2.283-289).

There is simply no need for Shylock to be so incredibly stubborn and prideful about

a deal he has made with Antonio. It is inhumane and wicked for any man to choose

blood over money, to choose death over peace, to choose violence over comfort and

luxury. Yet, we see Shylock’s daughter reveal his true nature when he is in the

presence of two me who are not equal to him. Shylock clearly values his own word

and his own pride more than he values the life of others.

In the final act of the play we see the lack of regret and the lack of human

compassion that Jessica possesses. Lorenzo and Jessica are in Portia’s garden

relaxed, speaking ambiguously of their love for each other when Lorenzo says to

Jessica:

In such a night did Jessica steal from the wealthy Jew and with an unthrift

love did run from Venice as far as Belmont (V.1.14-17).

The fact that they are able to ‘joke’ about this matter so casually in such comfort just

goes to show that Jessica’s heart has been with her father’s riches and the opposing

religion ever since she was able to truly think for herself. These exchange of ‘playful’

words really emphasize the values that the people of Venice and Belmont hold,

especially Jessica.

Throughout this play, the true nature of human beings is revealed to the

fullest through the shallowness and simplicity of the main characters, and through

their words and actions we are asked to question our own relationships, values, and

morals due to the lack of compassion that I present.

 Scott

Work Cited

Graham, Cary B. “Standards of Value in The Merchant of Venice.” Shakespeare

Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 2, 1953, p. 145., doi:10.2307/2866172.

Metzger, Mary Janell. “‘Now by My Hood, a Gentle and No Jew’: Jessica, The
Merchant of Venice, and the Discourse of Early Modern English Identity.” Pmla,
vol. 113, no. 1, 1998, p. 52., doi:10.2307/463408.

Overton, Bill. “The Problem of Shylock.” The Merchant of Venice, 1987, pp. 24–
34., doi:10.1007/978-1-349-08174-5_4.

Picker,John. “Shylock and the Struggle for Closure.” Judaism: A Quarterly

Journal of Jewish Life and Thought, vol43,
no.2, 1994, p. 173+. Academic OneFile, Accessed 7 Nov. 12018.

Sherman, Anita Gilman. “Disowning Knowledge of Jessica, or Shylocks

Skepticism.” SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, vol. 44, no. 2, 2004,
pp. 277–295., doi:10.1353/sel.2004.0021.