Jessica - Victim or villain?

Jessica can be seen as a victim because it can be argued that Jessica was right to run away with the man she loved; after all, her father treated her badly, he didn’t have much love and concern for her and she was entitled to what she had stolen. In Act 2, scene 3, Jessica describes her (and her father’s) house as ‘hell’. This means that Jessica was leading a miserable life and her treatment was not what she thought she deserved. So, she was right to leave her father, as he never cared for him.

In Act 2, Scene 5, it is evident that Shylock does not treat Jessica well when he yells ‘what Jessica! - What sleep, snore, and red apparel out. Why Jessica, I say!’. Jessica is treated like a possession, a servant to do all Shylock’s bidding. She is restricted in what she can do; we can identify this when Shylock orders Jessica to stay in the house and protect it until Shylock’s return (‘Jessica, my girl, look to my house.’) When Launcelot talks about the masque, Shylock gives more orders to Jessica, but never mentions anything about Jessica’s personal safety. We can see that Shylock treats Jessica as an asset, rather than a daughter or a human being, when we analyse the lines - ‘Clamber not onto the casements then, Nor thrust your head into the public street’. Even though we cannot be certain if Shylock is trying to express his genuine concern and love for his daughter or his worries about his house being corrupted by ‘shallow foppery’, his treatment of Jessica as an asset cannot be justified.

We can find more evidence that supports the statement that Shylock never loved or cared for Jessica when we look at Solanio's account of what Shylock says when he finds out that Jessica ran away. In the account, Shylock is said to have compared Jessica to his ducats - ‘ ‘My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter!’. In modern times, it would be expected that a parent would grieve only for the loss of his/her daughter; however, Shylock grieves for his ducats as much as he grieves for his daughter’s elopement. Moreover, Shylock always refers to Jessica by ‘my daughter’. This again reveals that Jessica is seen as a mere possession by Shylock because he always uses the word ‘my’. Also, this shows that Shylock and Jessica were never close in the first place, so it wasn't selfish of Jessica to run away.

Jessica could also be seen as a victim because of how society perceived her as. As she was a Jew, it was forbidden of her to marry a christian. Jews were a second class citizen in Venice at that time (ironically, Venice was seen to be an extremely liberal city at that time). Shylock would never have approved of Jessica’s and Lorenzo’s relationship; Shylock’s contempt for christians can be evident when he describes them as ‘fools’ and ‘prodigal’.

All the above evidence supports the thesis that Jessica was right to run away as Shylock never cared for her. However, it can also be argued that Jessica was selfish to run away and stealing from his dad; especially after knowing how much value Shylock had for his wealth which he acquired after immense hard work. By stealing money from Shylock, Jessica was villainous because of the impact her actions had over her father. Jessica says that her father has qualities that are repugnant (‘But though I am a daughter to his blood, I am not to his manners’ act 2, scene 4) and she will never have them. But, if she were so good and virtuous, why would she hurt her own father by running away and stealing a significant proportion of his wealth? Jessica’s actions cannot be justified because Shylock had to work really hard to fight the prejudices of Venetian society to earn his wealth, and Jessica was unable to respect that, even though sh Jessica is also said to have sold her mother’s ring for a monkey; this shows her indifference for her father’s sentiments because the ring was the last memory Shylock had of his late wife, Leah. It can be argued that Jessica is cruel and villainous because she leaves Shylock all alone; Launcelot had switched masters and Shylock’s wife is presumably dead, so there is no one to look after Jessica. Furthermore, Jessica is a villain because she exuberantly wasted Shylock’s hard earned money, so her elopement can be seen as selfish because it look as if she eloped to have more fun than actually be with her partner, Lorenzo. It can be doubted how much love Jessica has for Lorenzo in the last act, Jessica and Lorenzo seem to regret their elopement.

Jessica was not only selfish because she betrayed her father, but also because she betrayed her people and religion. As stated before, Jews were suppressed and treated as second class citizens in Venice, so Jessica’s elopement with Lorenzo (who was a christian and possessed prejudices for jews, as evident when he describes Shylock as his ‘father Jew’ in a sarcastic tone) was an act of betrayal for her kind. Jessica herself acknowledges her villainy when she says ‘Alack, what heinous sin it is in me, To be ashamed to be my father’s child!’).

In conclusion, I think Jessica is a villain because she was selfish; she only cared for her needs, but not her father’s, who had looked after her for so long. She took away one of the most things Shylock cared for; his dignity (she ran away with a christian) and his wealth (which he worked so hard to acquire). She proved herself to be a hypocrite by claiming she was better person than her father, but then she afflicted the great misery on Shylock by running away and taking his gold. She proved herself to be prodigal (spendthrift), a characteristic Shylock held contempt for. Jessica never embodied the teachings of her father, so it was not Shylock how wronged, it was Jessica because she was unable to respect her father and his teachings. Just before Jessica’s elopement, Shylock said ‘Fast bind, fast find’ (lock up securely and everything will be safe when you return). When Shylock returns, he is met with disaster. Jessica was selfish to take his possessions when he had just asked her to look after his possessions.

To what extent is Portia the most powerful character in the play?

Power has two significant meanings: ‘the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way’; and ‘the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events’. In the play, Portia displays both type of power. I will first look into the first definition of power, and then the second to tackle the question: To what extent is Portia the most powerful character in the play?

Portia certainly has a lot of capacity; she stops Shylock from killing Antonio when Antonio himself, Bassanio, Gratiano and the Duke is not able to. So, Portia had more intelligence than many other men other men. Portia is also powerful in the society in the sense she is a rich heiress. As she has a lot of money, men crave for her. Bassanio is eager to woo Portia not only because of her beauty but also for her money. Portia has a lot of wit also. In the court scene (act 4, scene 2), when asked what her fee will be by Bassanio, Portia (disguised as a young civil doctor) persuades Bassanio to give him the ring that she had given to him to keep. She fools Bassanio even more in Act 5 Scene 1, by jokingly saying that she slept with the civil doctor and then took the ring from him when she realised that it was the same ring that she gave to Bassanio.

Portia is arguably the the most intelligent character in the ‘Merchant of Venice’; however she is unable to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events. In Act 1, Scene 2, Portia complains that she is ‘a living daughter curbed by the will of her dead father’. This shows how little influence Portia had over who will be her husband. Anyone wishing to be her husband had to go to test her late father had devised; the wooer had to choose one out of three caskets (gold, silver, lead) and if the wooer chose right, then he will be able to marry Portia, and otherwise if he chose wrong he would have to stay bachelor for rest of his life. From the words Portia uses, we can see that Portia feels powerless and restricted (she says ‘curbed’ - which means restricted’).

“The brain may devise laws for the blood, but a hot temper leaps o'er a cold decree;... so is the will of a living daughter curb'd by the will of a dead father. Is it not hard, Nerissa, that I cannot choose one, nor refuse none?” These lamentation is important because it represent how strongly Portia felt about the restriction her father had put on her. She says that even though she is able to govern her passion (‘brain may devise laws for the blood’, here, blood is meant to represent passion), she cannot fulfill her passion because of the ‘cold degree’ (advice and instructions) her father has given her. At that day and age, woman would be expected to listen to their fathers, however, today, a daughter may not feel it is important to always follow their parent’s command. The restrictions that Portia’s father had imposed on Portia is a example how less influence Portia has on her life.

Portia loses her influence over wealth and estate when Bassanio chooses the right casket and so become her to-be husband. “You see me Lord Bassanio... As from her lord, her governor, her king. 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's.” This short-speech by Portia expresses that all wealth and estate of Portia (previously) is now of Bassanio. Portia’s speech implies that Portia is happy with Bassanio owning everything she owned till now, but anyways, all her values and possessions were entitled to the person Portia would marry (the note in the lead casket says ‘fortune fall to you’ - fortune can imply the wealth). Portia repeatedly calls Bassanio her ‘lord’, which exemplifies that Bassanio now owns of Portia’s wealth and Portia herself.

Portia’s speech marks the shift of power (over her inheritance) from Portia to Bassanio. Portia herself states that there is a shift in power - “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's”. At first, Bassanio had come to seek Portia’s love and fortune while Portia was the lord of the house, but now, Portia became the seeker of Bassanio’s love (as evident by ‘That only to stand high in your account’ - Portia is ready to be anything to please Bassanio). The themes of the play are: argosies, usury, property, wealth and debt collection. So the shift in power also signifies the shift in wealth, and in the Merchant of Venice, wealth plays a big role in the importance(influence) of one person.

We can compare the poem by Katherine Philips, ‘A married state’, to the state Portia finds herself in. Philips writes that the woman is a possession of the man after marriage, but if woman does not marry, they can live freely. This is made evident by the lines ‘A virgin state is crowned with much content’ and ‘Few worldly crosses to distract your prayers’.

After reviewing the power Portia has throughout the play, I do not agree that Portia is most powerful character in the play. When she has the control over her estate and fortune, she did not have the control to chose the wooer she wished to and to refuse the wooer she wished to refuse. After Bassanio choosing the right casket, her power diminished to greater extent because she was not the lord of her house anymore. It may be argued that Portia is the most powerful character because she, being a woman, is the only one to able to stop Shylock from killing Antonio. However, this argument can be refuted because Portia has to dress us as a man to be able to act as the defender of Antonio. Yet again, we can see Portia is powerless, the limiting factor here is her gender. In the play, the stature and the influence a person has defines his/her power. Because Antonio is well-renowned ship merchant, he is able to get support from the Duke of Venice.

How does 'Cousin Kate' explore the treatment of women in the 19th century

In the compelling dramatic monologue ‘Cousin Kate’, the author explores the treatment of women in the 19th century by revealing the sexual double standards that operated at that time. In line 15, Christina Rossetti compares the cottage maiden to an ‘unclean thing’, an outcast and a fallen woman. Rossetti uses the metaphor (i.e. the narrator describes herself as ‘unclean’) to show how society viewed the maiden because she was an abandoned, unmarried woman with a child. However, the man (the lord) was not condemned by society, even though he fathered a child outside of marriage. So, the poem shows how easily a woman could fall short of the moral standards the society required of them and be turned into an outcast; whereas men were generally excused. An alliteration is used in the first stanza to emphasize the loss of innocence - the loss of innocence is conveyed by the soft M of ‘maiden', ‘mates' and ‘mindful' .

The sin of temptation is portrayed in the 11th line (second stanza). The sibilance ‘To lead a shameful shameless life’ is an oxymoron, and it shows how much religion dominated the lives of women in those time. The women were expected to be virtues and maintain religion; whereas men were able to make any decision (again, we can see the gender inequality in the 19th century) as they had all the power in society. The speaker is ‘lured’(line 9) by the man, but the maid experiences ‘joy’ (line 10) and she is eager to please the lord because of the love and admiration he has shown for her. Because the lord filled her ‘heart with care’ (line 8), the woman is obliged to serve the lord and so leads a ‘shameful shameless life’. From this, we can understand another thing about how women were treated in the 19th century, which I will describe in the next paragraph.

Women were expected to serve men and they were seen as a possession of man in the the time the poem was written in. The word ‘plaything’ symbolises possession. There is a also an underlying meaning of ‘plaything’ - plaything describes the maiden was not held with much importance by the lord and the lord used the maiden for his amusement. Then, the author describes the maiden as the lord’s ‘love’. This use of an unapparent semantic field also symbolises possession. Even though ‘love’ sounds much more positive than ‘plaything’, both words represent possession because ‘his’(a possessive pronoun) is repeated times before the nouns ‘plaything’ and ‘love’. The metaphor is extended when the author describes the maid as a ‘silken knot’ and a ‘glove’. The lord wore the maid as a silken knot - which is symbolic of the fact that the lord had no regard for the maids feelings and sees her a fashion accessory he could use and then cast away, rather than as an individual with her own needs - he casts her away eventually. The word ‘glove’ is meant to symbolicof the purpose of the maid was to serve the lord - he used her and moulded her into a shape that suited him and then, like a glove that no longer pleases, dispensed with her completely. A glove is an intimate and personal object that fits itself around its user. By describing herself as a glove, the speaker acknowledges that she lost sight of her own needs and desires in an attempt to please and suit the lord.

‘Cousin Kate’ also shows men restricted women in the 19th century. ‘He lured me into his palace home’ (line 9) - this imagery suggests that the protagonist was lured into a trap (which is the palace home) where the maid became his possession. Then, the author says that Kate was ‘bound’ in marriage by the lord. So, there is repeated message in the poem: according to the author, the foundations of marriage is less based on love than on the greed of the male. This message is contradictory to the view the society had at that time. Victorians thought that marriage was the key for a table society. However, the poem shows that marriage was a great burden for women at that time; Kate is expected to bear a child for the lord, but she is unable to and so she is sad.

The author explores the fact that women were not always content with marriage by changing the rhyming of the last stanza. The entire poem is written within an unrelenting rhyme scheme. Within each verse, the final word of even lines all rhyme with one another. Around this rhyme scheme, other rhymes are introduced.

In the final verse, the rhyme scheme runs ‘abcbdbeb’. Whereas in most of the stanzas the odd lines rhyme, here the odd lines don’t rhyme (but the even lines continue to do so) , making the individualised words stand out more. ‘Ring' and ‘one' (lines 43, 47) are both words which usually signify unity, but the situation the speaker describes does not have a unified happy ending and the wedding-ring she speaks of does not symbolise the union it traditionally stands for.

If we compare the ‘Cousin Kate’ to ‘A married state’, we can find many similarities. Cousin Kate briefly highlights the fact that marriage is not always a happy outcome and ‘A married state’ strongly approves of this idea that marriage usually leads to the wife to be discontent. However, there is a difference between the two poems. ‘Cousin Kate’ shows that having child is the only joy that can be given from marriage, but ‘A married state’ states that having children worsens the burden of marriage. We know that ‘Cousin Kate’ shows that a child the positive outcome of a marriage because of the echoed(repeated) structure in the final stanza – that Kate has ‘not got' and is ‘not like to get' the gift of a child.

Now, lets compare ‘Cousin Kate’ to ‘The Merchant of Venice’. Both pieces of literature implies that marriages don’t always end in happiness (in Act 5 Scene 1, we see that Jessica and Lorenzo are doubtful that their marriage was a good decision when they make allusions to their probably failing relationship to mystical failed relationships). Also, ‘The Merchant of Venice’ shows how men value his lover more than after their marriage - Bassanio worships Portia before their marriage, and after their marriage he offers Portia life for Antonio’s in Act 4 Scene 1. This is also reflected in ‘Cousin Kate’, at first the lord deeply admires the maid, but then uses her as a possession when he takes her as mistress. Finally, both work of literature uses ‘rings’ to show that woman is the property of the man and that man has more power in society; Portia becomes Bassanio’s property when she (“This house, these servants, and this same myself, Are yours- my lord's”) pledges herself to Bassanio by calling him his lord. Men are the only people who are the lord of the house, in the play and in the poem.

In conclusion, ‘Cousin Kate’ shows that women had less social power in the 19th century, because of the gender inequality that operated at that time. Also, women were restricted by men, which is also shown in ‘The Merchant of Venice’ and ‘A married state’. So ‘Cousin Kate’ explores the treatment of women by underlining how dependant women were on men in the nineteenth century. By being cast aside by the lord, the maid loses the lord’s financial support and she ends up in the ‘dust’ whereas Kate ends up in the ‘gold’. This contrast between the narrator and Kate brings an imagery into the reader’s mind that tells him/her that the social position women also affected how they were treated. Kate could ‘sing’ because she was rich, but the narrator had to ‘howl’ because she had no money (as she was a abandoned mistress and so no man would marry her) which is symbolises that the maid was not respected by society when Kate was (that is why Kate is described as good and pure but the narrator is described by the society to be an outcast (stanza 4). The repetition of ‘good and pure’ suggests and ‘outcast’ is meant to make the difference in the treatment of the two women distinct.

Which has stronger effect on one's life: one's circumstances or one's beliefs.

Undoubtedly, beliefs have a stronger and greater effect than one's circumstances. Circumstances are more supple than beliefs; one is able to shape their circumstances by believing, but circumstances do not change one's belief. Humans make choices based upon what they believe. That is why I argue that believing has a greater effect on our life than the circumstances we find ourselves in. My thesis can be proved by looking into how successful people have attained their accomplishment. Evidence of my thesis exist in religion and in the lives of successful people.

When we look at the story of the Exodus, we can see a shining example of when believe triumphs over circumstances. The old testament describes how the Hebrews were led out of Egypt by Moses, a Prophet was sent by God to bring revelations to his people. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt, and they labored day and night under the rich Egyptians. They lacked much of the basic necessities of life. However, the Hebrews did not despair and believed that if they were dutiful to God, God would send help. They followed their beliefs, and they were rewarded. We can see from this story that beliefs have a greater impact than the circumstances.

Groups of people aren't the only one to triumph because of their beliefs, individuals can too. Steve Jobs, who is said to be the quintessential of all entrepreneurs, believed that he was special since childhood. His belief led to him founding and building three of the greatest companies that the corporate world has seen. However, his circumstances were not great: his parents were blue-collar workers and could not afford to send Steve to University. So yet again, we see that one's belief can lead one to succeed. Circumstances cannot impede a person from attaining what he or she wants as long as the person believes in himself or herself.

Henry Ford said 'If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right.' I agree with Ford's saying because our beliefs define what choices we make and so has more effect on our lives than our circumstances. We, humans, have evolved to adapt to our circumstances, so our beliefs are what matter. In my point of view, when we change our beliefs, we change the circumstance we are in.

Do we put too value into ideas and actions of individual people

I believe that we do not put too much value into the ideas and actions into individual people because for all the progress humankind has made, the action of putting value into ideas and actions of individual people has to be accredited. If we say that that we put too much value in Galileo and Copernicus' idea that Earth orbits Sun, not the otherway round, or that we put too much value into the ideas and actions of Martin Luther King when he protested against segregation in society; we are gravely mistaken, indeed.

Galileo and Copernicus' idea that Earth orbits Sun was completely alien to the Italian society in the 16th Century. At first, scientists and scholars debunked the Copernicus's theory and then Galileo's observation that proved the theory, leading to society being still under the misconception that Sun orbited the Earth, not the otherway round. However, it was later accepted in Europe and then throughout the world that Galileo and Copernicus were right, leading to a misconception, that had fallen on the human kind like a burden for so long, to be lifted. From this example, we can see that putting value into Galileo and Copernicus' idea cleared a big misconception which bought progress, thus exemplifying that we do not put too much value into ideas and actions of individual people because the value we put in these ideas and actions have never been replaced. This happens because human possess the gut-feeling when to put value and when to not, and by thinking we put too much value into ideas and actions of individual people, we tend to think too logically and end up misplacing our value.

Similarly, Martin Luther King was first criticized and threatened by white people that lived near him for standing up for his own rights and the rights of the fellow black population of America. However, by putting value into his protests and ideologies when the listened to their hearts, the public made a decision that lead to turning point in American and the Worldwide society, creating a change that shaped the world for better. Again, we can see when we value ideas and actions of people, we never put too much value in them because we are born with the capability to know when to and when not to put value into ideas and actions of individual people.

A baby understands to it is safe to be held by a parent, but he/she will make a racket when he or she is held by a stranger, sensing that these stranger may be of some harm to him/her. These gut-feeling is used when we value ideas and actions of people, hence we are channel ourselves to put the right amount of faith and value while judging the ideas and actions of people. If we do not follow this gut-feeling and use our logic too much, things that look right to us may turn out to be wrong, and when it comes to valuing the ideas and action of others, it is always best to follow our gut-felling, as proven by the example above.   

Is creativity needed in the world more than ever today

Creativity drives progress. The human population is now at a time when breakthroughs are not the only factor for success and progress. Breakthroughs now have to be coupled together with creativity, so that the best outcome can be produced. This is because creativity makes breakthroughs valuable, as creativity is basically using resources to create a better outcome. Technology such motion sensors and scientific breakthroughs, for example genetic engineering, show that this statement is true.

Motion sensors have been a commonly used technology for some time now. However, this technology hasn't seen much advancements in other fields than gaming in smartphones, until recently. A company called Leap-motion is now innovating with cameras that sense hand motions (i.e. gestures) and by using this motions, they can empower different type experience for users through a plethora of devices. The company's creativity has led to the opening of a different corner of the technology market. We can see that by incorporating creativity with technology, they have created a new market, and a lot of revenue for themselves.

Genetic engineering is a concept and methodology that has been used in years to make genetically engineered bacteria which produce insulin for diabetic patients. Genetic engineering has paved in new ways of production, but otherwise it hasn't been successfully incorporated into other fields until recently. A group of students of Wisconsin University experimented with genetically engineered bacteria to make bulbs. They engineered two sets of bacteria, one set that is engineered to make light, and the other is engineered to take the waste of the other set of bacteria and convert into food which can be recycled by the luminous bacteria by consumption as food. Again, we can see that by being creative, a group has made advancements in their fields. As more and more breakthroughs are made by the human race, more and more creativity is being needed to fuel this process of advancement. Without creativity, efficiency will be hindered.

Creativity is key for humanity as a race to make advancements and progress, because as we have seen above, creativity results in new areas where people can innovate, experiment and be successful. However, creativity is not restricted to breakthroughs. Creativity can be applied in art; an artist, for example a singer will be successful if he or she can make more engaging and attractive video for hi/her new song. Robin Thicke, a singer who until now wasn't commendably successful, topped the music charts by incorporating twitter hashtags into his video. This only did not make him trendy on Twitter, but he received international fame as an innovative artist. So we can see that creativity is needed in the world more than ever today. In order to appeal to the masses, one is needed to be creative. This applies everywhere, from science, to music, to art and to even college essay applications - creativity is needed to produce an attractive college entrance essay to catch the administrators eye. Hence, we now live in society where the incorporation of creativity is beneficial and needed, without doubt.

Is it better to be original or than to imitate or use the ideas of others

Over the last two decade, Apple, a technology company specializing in hardware and software, has released a series of innovative and attractive products successfully and has triumphed in the tech sector. However, none of their 'breakthroughs' were indigenous to Apple, but instead, many other companies and inventors had attempted to market the same type of product in the past. Similarly, Facebook, a social-networking website that dominates the social-networking market, was not a unique creation of it Founder (Mark Zuckerberg), but instead a much more competitive version of the social-networking sites already available. We can see that two companies have triumphed in their respective fields, both because their ideas were original, but rather they were imitated. Newton had once said 'If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants'. Similarly, Plato had said 'Good artists copy, great artists steal'. Therefore, we can see that even great people and companies succeed when they  imitate or use the ideas of others. This happens because when we imitate an idea, we usually tend to refine it, and although the initial holder of the idea had triumph, we triumph because we imitate and modify the idea.

 By imitating or using someone elses idea, we tend to modify the idea. This makes the idea more appealing, and so we become successful with it. However, if we didn't imitate or use the ideas of others, being successful would be usually harder. This is because first it will take more time to form our own ideas instead of using someone elses, and then when we have the idea, it may not be as perfect as it could be. Imitating others idea insures progress, because until the idea is not refined till it becomes a hit, the idea would be reused and reused, hence progress will be made. However, if imitate or use the ideas of others we form just our own ideas and no else copies it because they think it is wrong to imitate or use the ideas of others, just like we do, progress will be rare, and the world would full of just original ideas, nor refined ones. We also learn by imitating or using the ideas of others. When companies imitate another's company ideas, they learn from what the other company did wrong, and they learn from what they did right.

Is it better to imitate or use the ideas of others than be original because imitation ensures progress and learning. As I discussed before, of everyone used original ideas, how would the human kind ever progress?