FREE ESSAY ON THE MERCHANT OF VENICE AND HENRY V

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE AND HENRY V

Kelley Vickers-Sullivan
Engl. 141-Mid-Term Essay
March 30, 2000
You've Come a Long Way Baby!
Shakespeare's presentation and portrayal of his female characters in The Merchant of
Venice and Henry V follows a typical pattern that is present in all of the Shakespearean
plays that I have read so far. When looking closely at the fate of his female characters,
this pattern becomes even more evident for it repeats itself no matter how different the
plays are. For instance, Henry V and The Merchant of Venice are different in every
respect. The female characters not only come from different backgrounds, they also have
very different personalities. However, as different as these plays and their characters
are, the female characters end up suffering the same fate. It doesn't seem to matter
whether they are born into a life of peasantry, nobility, or come from royalty, for they
ultimately will end up being no better than a piece of land, or cattle, or some
possession that a man can own and do with as he pleases. Scholars have been debating for
centuries now as to whether Shakespeare's women reflect his society's attitudes or that
of his own. 
Henry V is definitely geared more for the male audience. There are only two or three acts
in which a female character is present at all. When we first get a glimpse of Katherine,
she is trying to learn the English language. This scene is supposed to be somewhat
comical, but are we really supposed to believe that while there is a war raging
throughout her country, that all Katherine is concerned about is the fact that she can't
speak the language of her enemy? This scene in which we get our first glimpse of
Katherine is somewhat degrading to her character as well as misleading. This leaves the
audience with the inaccurate perception that Katherine, and thus all women in general,
care very little about what's going on around them, and more about making themselves
presentable. Afterall, isn't Katherine the "Grand Prize" that will be awarded to the
winning side? 
I find it very insulting that Shakespeare's only significant female role in the whole
play, is being used as a " Prize" to be given away. Shakespeare doesn't even try to hide
the fact that he is setting Katherine up as a prize. I find this kind of arrogance to be
offensive and very belittling to women. 
While the men are off fighting the battle, Katherine, the future Queen of France, does
not appear to be a bit concerned over the fate of her own country. Instead, she readily
accepts her fate as she prepares herself for the role of Queen of England.
This play is very biased and one-sided. Most of the English men are portrayed as noble,
humble and superior to the French. Henry himself can do no wrong, and is portrayed
through out the play as the best leader that the English have ever had. This image that
he can do no wrong and is as close to being perfect as one can get, only holds up if you
don't go digging around in Henry's past, in which he had been portrayed as a spoiled,
pampered partying boy. The French, in contrast to the English, are presented as arrogant,
incompetent, and weak, very similar to what Henry had been not to long ago. There is,
however, one thing lower than a Frenchman, and that is, a French woman. 
The fact that Shakespeare subjected Katherine's character, (she, who had been born into
royalty which was the highest social position one can reach), to being treated as a
possession or prize for a man, only adds credence to the argument that Shakespeare had
very little respect for women.
Katherine character, for the most part, adds very little, if anything at all, to the
play. In fact, the role of Katherine could have easily been omitted altogether, and
personally, I wish it had been The last act, in which Henry easily manages to win the
affections of Katherine, is a weak attempt on Shakespeare's part to end the play on a an
uplifting note. It's a shame that Shakespeare put it in at all because it definitely
changes the way I feel about this play, in particular, as well as the others.
The women characters in The Merchant of Venice are treated with much more respect than
Katherine had been. However, I have a feeling that it's only due to the fact that
Shakespeare thinks less of "Jews" than he does women. 
The Merchant of Venice, does have a strong cast of women who play very important roles
throughout the play. These women are much more impressive than those found in Henry V.
Portia, in particular, is by far the superior one of the play. Like Queen Elizabeth
herself, Portia's character is a blending of femininity and masculinity. Portia has great
strength of character, a quick wit, and is very well educated in the affairs of the world
around her which is not a common theme in Shakespeare's women. She is in every respect
far superior to the fools she ends up being surrounded by. This might not have been the
case if it weren't for the fact that she, with all her intelligence and wit is still
being dictated by a male. Her dead father dictates her life through his will. I guess
Shakespeare does not miss an opportunity to put even the most superior of all women in
her place as he does just that to Portia. For all her power, riches, and strengths, she
still is no better than the man she marries. Her new husband, Barsenio, is no match for
her, and yet he is handed over everything that belongs to her, including her soul.
Although Shakespeare gives the very best of qualities and traits to the female character
Portia, he knows that in spite of her superiority and domination over all the other
characters including the male characters, he can later strip her of all her greatness at
any time, and does just that at the end of the play. What I find so unbelievable is the
way that Shakespeare's women just hand over everything including themselves, no questions
asked, to a man they hardly know and yet willingly and happily marry. I have a hard time
believing that women of his day did this duty so graciously.
Portia's portrayal of being such a strong figure and at the same time, a woman who is
subservient to her times, makes me question whether Shakespeare really knew what was gong
on in the minds of the Elizabethan women. Just the fact that he disguises his women
characters up as men in order to bring them to higher levels, leads me to believe that he
is just making it all up as he goes along. Don't get me wrong, I love most of
Shakespeare's work. It's just his female characters that I have a problem with.
When reading Shakespeare it is easy to question what his motives might have been.
Scholars have been doing this for centuries. We will never be sure as to whether or not
Shakespeare was reflecting the times or his own feelings. One must keep in mind when
reading Shakespeare that hs writings are not historically accurate and therefore most
likely only reflect his views on things. I only hope that is the case, for I can't
imagine women ever being so passive. Could we have really been the passive beings that
Shakespeare portrays women as, I seriously doubt it.
Kelley Vickers-Sullivan
Engl. 141-Mid-Term Essay
March 30, 2000
You've Come a Long Way Baby!
Shakespeare's presentation and portrayal of his female characters in The Merchant of
Venice and Henry V follows a typical pattern that is present in all of the Shakespearean
plays that I have read so far. When looking closely at the fate of his female characters,
this pattern becomes even more evident for it repeats itself no matter how different the
plays are. For instance, Henry V and The Merchant of Venice are different in every
respect. The female characters not only come from different backgrounds, they also have
very different personalities. However, as different as these plays and their characters
are, the female characters end up suffering the same fate. It doesn't seem to matter
whether they are born into a life of peasantry, nobility, or come from royalty, for they
ultimately will end up being no better than a piece of land, or cattle, or some
possession that a man can own and do with as he pleases. Scholars have been debating for
centuries now as to whether Shakespeare's women reflect his society's attitudes or that
of his own. 
Henry V is definitely geared more for the male audience. There are only two or three acts
in which a female character is present at all. When we first get a glimpse of Katherine,
she is trying to learn the English language. This scene is supposed to be somewhat
comical, but are we really supposed to believe that while there is a war raging
throughout her country, that all Katherine is concerned about is the fact that she can't
speak the language of her enemy? This scene in which we get our first glimpse of
Katherine is somewhat degrading to her character as well as misleading. This leaves the
audience with the inaccurate perception that Katherine, and thus all women in general,
care very little about what's going on around them, and more about making themselves
presentable. Afterall, isn't Katherine the "Grand Prize" that will be awarded to the
winning side? 
I find it very insulting that Shakespeare's only significant female role in the whole
play, is being used as a " Prize" to be given away. Shakespeare doesn't even try to hide
the fact that he is setting Katherine up as a prize. I find this kind of arrogance to be
offensive and very belittling to women. 
While the men are off fighting the battle, Katherine, the future Queen of France, does
not appear to be a bit concerned over the fate of her own country. Instead, she readily
accepts her fate as she prepares herself for the role of Queen of England.
This play is very biased and one-sided. Most of the English men are portrayed as noble,
humble and superior to the French. Henry himself can do no wrong, and is portrayed
through out the play as the best leader that the English have ever had. This image that
he can do no wrong and is as close to being perfect as one can get, only holds up if you
don't go digging around in Henry's past, in which he had been portrayed as a spoiled,
pampered partying boy. The French, in contrast to the English, are presented as arrogant,
incompetent, and weak, very similar to what Henry had been not to long ago. There is,
however, one thing lower than a Frenchman, and that is, a French woman. 
The fact that Shakespeare subjected Katherine's character, (she, who had been born into
royalty which was the highest social position one can reach), to being treated as a
possession or prize for a man, only adds credence to the argument that Shakespeare had
very little respect for women.
Katherine character, for the most part, adds very little, if anything at all, to the
play. In fact, the role of Katherine could have easily been omitted altogether, and
personally, I wish it had been The last act, in which Henry easily manages to win the
affections of Katherine, is a weak attempt on Shakespeare's part to end the play on a an
uplifting note. It's a shame that Shakespeare put it in at all because it definitely
changes the way I feel about this play, in particular, as well as the others.
The women characters in The Merchant of Venice are treated with much more respect than
Katherine had been. However, I have a feeling that it's only due to the fact that
Shakespeare thinks less of "Jews" than he does women. 
The Merchant of Venice, does have a strong cast of women who play very important roles
throughout the play. These women are much more impressive than those found in Henry V.
Portia, in particular, is by far the superior one of the play. Like Queen Elizabeth
herself, Portia's character is a blending of femininity and masculinity. Portia has great
strength of character, a quick wit, and is very well educated in the affairs of the world
around her which is not a common theme in Shakespeare's women. She is in every respect
far superior to the fools she ends up being surrounded by. This might not have been the
case if it weren't for the fact that she, with all her intelligence and wit is still
being dictated by a male. Her dead father dictates her life through his will. I guess
Shakespeare does not miss an opportunity to put even the most superior of all women in
her place as he does just that to Portia. For all her power, riches, and strengths, she
still is no better than the man she marries. Her new husband, Barsenio, is no match for
her, and yet he is handed over everything that belongs to her, including her soul.
Although Shakespeare gives the very best of qualities and traits to the female character
Portia, he knows that in spite of her superiority and domination over all the other
characters including the male characters, he can later strip her of all her greatness at
any time, and does just that at the end of the play. What I find so unbelievable is the
way that Shakespeare's women just hand over everything including themselves, no questions
asked, to a man they hardly know and yet willingly and happily marry. I have a hard time
believing that women of his day did this duty so graciously.
Portia's portrayal of being such a strong figure and at the same time, a woman who is
subservient to her times, makes me question whether Shakespeare really knew what was gong
on in the minds of the Elizabethan women. Just the fact that he disguises his women
characters up as men in order to bring them to higher levels, leads me to believe that he
is just making it all up as he goes along. Don't get me wrong, I love most of
Shakespeare's work. It's just his female characters that I have a problem with.
When reading Shakespeare it is easy to question what his motives might have been.
Scholars have been doing this for centuries. We will never be sure as to whether or not
Shakespeare was reflecting the times or his own feelings. One must keep in mind when
reading Shakespeare that hs writings are not historically accurate and therefore most
likely only reflect his views on things. I only hope that is the case, for I can't
imagine women ever being so passive. Could we have really been the passive beings that
Shakespeare portrays women as, I seriously doubt it.