Seidel Post 3: Identity

Identity comes into play in William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice in a few interesting and dynamic ways. The way that identity is most noticeable in the play for me is through the inclusion and exclusion of certain characters. Within the play it is seen that there is a group people, the men, who band together: which falls in line with the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) definition of comitatus – a body of companions. With this idea of comitatus relating to the text, I use it as a magnifying glass to look at the varying aspects of identity. In the idea of comitatus there is a structure, which someone is either inside or outside of. In The Merchant of Venice, the one most notably outside of the structure is Shylock. This is due to his “otherness”.  With comitatus, the requirements for someone to be excluded is their inability to be included with the group at large because of their unique characteristic traits. The idea of “otherness” stems from the medieval understanding of anything outside the realm of normal as monstrous. So for the group of men within the text, Shylock differs because of his religion and what affects that it has on his life and conduct, and he therefore is ostracized. Another interesting aspect within The Merchant of Venice of those who fall outside the structured comitatus are the women within the play. Though they are close to the men, and the men even rely on the women and their resources, the women still remain secondary to their male counterparts. In fact, the women even have to deceptively take on the role of men within the text to carry out highly effective action. I think this serves to highlight how outside the women are even when they are practically included – because they are women they are considered in the realm of “otherness”.

            With Romeo & Juliet, identity is thematic abound. The very reason for all the strife within the play is due to identity and the division it has caused “In fair Verona, where we lay our scene.” The Montagues and the Capulets are feuding, which causes problems when it comes to the romance born between Romeo and Juliet. Juliet herself expresses the problem familial identity is causing within the play when she says,

“O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet…

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.”

            I think this is an essential passage to break down when it comes to identity. What she’s saying here is key in understanding why the two lovers take the risk and disregard their families’ feud and proceed with their romance. What Juliet is asking is for Romeo to deny the name of his father, and how that identifies him as a part of that lineage. If he cannot do so she shall forsake her own father’s name. The feud has progressed so far that it is not the families who are truly enemies but rather the names alone. People can only be themselves, what authority do names even carry? A name isn’t something essential that is a part of a man, but rather something he takes on – that can be shed. People can take on new names and therefore create new identities (which Romeo and Juliet would do together with their love). Just because somebody has a name, it does not define them. The person is still the same person without it. A name is not essential in the make-up of a person. Like a hat, you can “doff” your name and easily put on a new one. For giving up his name, something that is not even essential to Romeo, Juliet will give all of herself to him so that they may forge a new identity together. Names are not important for they are not the reason for a person being who they are. This speech really pulls up a lot of good ideas about what qualifies as one’s identity and what does not, and how it is perceived and can be molded. Within this play I also find the repetition of celestial leit motifs interesting in having to do with the role of identity and Romeo and Juliet as “star-cross’d lovers”. Juliet is ascribed to the Sun – or light, also daylight – while Romeo is related to the stars, and also darkness (this is seen in his gloominess at the beginning of the play). In the play it was easy to see Juliet assuming the role of the light in the darkness of Romeo’s life. He says, “O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!” I think this employment of theme within this play is beautiful because through each other, and love, are they transformed and given new, meaningful (as they see it) identities.