How does the setting and time period affect the play/book the Merchant of Venice?
The Merchant of Venice took place in the Renaissance, so I would like to know if anyone has an ideas/suggestions on how the book would have changed if it had have been written in a different time period, and how the setting (venice, italy) affected it. (also in relation to how the Jews and Christians were treated throughout time) Thanks a lot !
Question answered by Cher and Cher alike
Shylock of the play is a classic antisemitic image of a Jew common in that time period.
It embodies all the lies & hatred directed at Jews. It is not that Shakespeare was particular antisemitic but rather that at the time, Europe was, so his image of Jews reflects the time period.
A google on Shylock & antisemtism will produce uch information.
Jews, ghettos, only being allowed into money lending professions & not other professions, were all continous efforts of the Church decrees (formal Papal decrees) then later the attitudes were continued by the Protestants.
From a Christian Jewish interfaith site:
"Few if any of the scholarly commentaries deny that the presentation of Shylock's character is antisemitic – indeed the opposite view is insupportable – but with these commentaries as with the persons I spoke about above there is a curious tendency to minimise the nasty matters. There are exceptions...."
There is a LOT in the article that relates to your question about the time period. For time lines on Jewish related events such as the forcing into ghettos & events in Venice then, this site tends to have a lot - http://www.virtualjewishlibrary.org
what is the difference between merchant exporter and manufacturer exporter?
If i have only a merchant exporter licence what should i do when i am manufacturing and if i have a manufacturinglicencee what should i do when i am trading others products?
Question answered by email@example.com
A merchant exporter is a business man, who buys good n exports the same.On the other hand,a manufacturer exporter is one, who produces goods n exports the same.If one has a merchant exporter licence,one can buy n export.The manufacturer licence holder can produce n export.So an exporter need to obtain licence for both types to enable him to buy n export n produce n export.with one licence one can not to the other export.
What was the impact of the improved economy after the tenth century on the social system of western Europe?
A) The merchants lost considerable power.
B) Harsh serfdom became the rule throughout western Europe.
C) Despite the improved economy, the rigid social system associated with feudalism continued to dominate western Europe.
D) The improvements in the agricultural system retarded the development of towns and restricted social mobility.
E) The increased pace of economic life created a less rigid structure.
Question answered by PhoenixSpeaksOut
A) No - the tenth century saw a more laissez-fair economy where the merchant class grew rapidly. They gained considerable power through new wealth which would later finance academic and technological advances causing the Enlightenment Age.
B) No - The 'improved economy' would have improved economic growth and social mobility (to a minuscule degree). It was the beginning of the break down of the Feudal System which treated the serf classes harshly.
C) Technically yes, as Feudalism did continue to dominate Western Europe, but the gradual rise of the merchant classes changed this over the next 400 years. The Crusades were largely instigated and funded by the Merchant classes who sure the financial opportunity of capturing the Holy Land for it's slaves, weapons, glass, silk, spices et cetera. (The Republic of Venice would become one of the most powerful states in the world because of this, and as a democracy was more or less built on the merchant classes).
D) No - Improved Agriculture = More Crops = More Money = More Investment Potential = More Growth and Social Mobility.
E) Yes - Wealth now flowed more through the merchant classes and general populace instead of the restrictive feudal Nobility, which had repressed economic growth throughout the dark ages. Technology began to develop, increasing the Gross Domestic Product as more crops could be produced. The high demand for food began to balance out as a result, creating a greater disposable income for the common people, allowing for increased demand in tools and products instead of just food needed to survive. Merchants possessed more money through the developing trade and could afford to improve and expand their business interests, growing the economy further through investment. The explosion of the middle class (Merchants, Craftsmen, Artisans) began to create a divide between the Nobility and Serfs, deregulating the feudal structure and increasing social mobility.
Why was the slave trade important to a merchant in Bristol?
For my history project, I need to know why and how the the slave trade was important to a merchant in Bristol (England). I couldn't find any decent websites to help me. HELP!!!
Question answered by ALAN
As a "Bristolian in exile" (Hampshire), I have always been interestrd in the city's history. In the Middle Ages it was one of the most important seaports in the country, mostly concrned with the Wine Trade to Bordeaux. The merchants became very wealthy, formed the "Society of Merchant Venturers", and, in the 1490s, financed both the Cabot expeditions, the first discovering "Ameryka" ( Richard Ameryk was a member of the M V) and then exploring the coast as far south as Florida, and realizing that it was NOT China, as had been hoped, but a truly a "new-found land". That expedition was a financial disaster though, and no more were sent across the Atlantic on any scale after Sebastian Cabot's unsuccessful attempt to find a "North-West Passage" in 1500.
They developed s new wine trade with Spain, but were bitterly disappointed when, after marryig Queen Mary I, King Phillip of Spain still refused them access to the Caribbean. They then became involved in illegal voyages to that area, and in piracy there, and so would have discovered the economic opportunities offered by both the sugar and slave trades - especially after Jamaica was taken in the 1650s, and became the central save market for both.
With the development of the textile industry, the demand for raw cotton, and the need for slaves to produce it, it was understandable that the Bristol merchants would "get in on the act", and did so very successfully for a number of years - most of the great Bristol philanthropists like Edward Colston made their fortunes from that trade. Gradually, however, the centre fo the trade moved to Liverpool, with its better direct access to the open sea, and its access to the wealth of the Lancashire cotton industry.
Like merchants everywhere, then and now, the Bristol ones exploited the most valuable trade opportnities of the time - they eventually turned to chocolate and tobacco - and are still involved in the Sherry trade with Spain. It's important to realise though, that slaves were never brought TO Bristol or Liverpool, and that the investors would have had little knowledge of the realities of the trade.
Can I spend Amazon Vouchers on items on Amazon, sold my non Amazon merchants?
I wanted to know whether it was possible for me to spend Amazon vouchers on items produced by companies such as Grindstore, Jack Daniels etc?
Question answered by Manish
yes of course.
Most Christian communities mentioned in the New Testament were in cities. This is because?
The Roman system of roads.
Jewish merchants followed the roads so there were Synagogue communities in the cities to make appeals to.
Cities had denser populations than the countryside and the evangelizers wanted to reach as large an audience as possible.
All of the above.
Question answered by New Formula CAt in the Tin Foil HAt
The original Christians were not very welcome in Judea so they took their show on the road to expose it to a wider audience.
Paul wanted to convert Gentiles, not Jews because he knew they wouldn't buy the whole "son of god" thing.
But the Greeks and Romans were used to having Gods who produced offspring so they bought into the myth more easily.
If I had to choose I'd say "D"
Do you feel the American Revolution produced a society which was superior to the Old British colonial System?
Considering the American Revolution, and the early history of the United States, do you feel that the revolution produced a new society which was superior to the old British colonial system in America, or do you think the pre-revolutionary society was equal to or better than that after the revolution? Why?
Question answered by j.
Believe it or not, for most people society did not change. Remember this was an agrarian society. Small family farms in the north and plantation system in the south. The war was due to anger of taxes on tea, paper and other slights (weather real or not doesn't matter today because the war has already happened). But those taxes were on items when purchased. Who spends more money? The wealthy. Now I am not being cynical and saying the war was about money or was to benefit the rich, but it certainly was a motivating factor. It is not a coincidence that the majority of the founding fathers were extremely wealthy. Washington operated a massive plantation. Adams was a successful lawyer. John Hancock was a merchant and so on.
So what changed from before the revolution to after it?
1) Slavery...nope, still around
2) Agrarian society...nope, still around
3) Urbanization...nope, didn't happen until well after the revolution so the war didn't play a part
4) Industrial Revolution...nope, well after
There were changes, but they were not shifts in society or rank or daily life. The most obvious of these was going from a Monarchy to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. But for an average farmer in the middle of Virginia, these changes were minor.
In fact, a very reasonable argument could be that the war hampered society. For instance, the economy depressed greatly, leading to revolts; such as Shay's Rebellion.
I would say that there is a fundamental problem with your question. You mention the British Colonial System versus American society. These can exist at the same time. Even when ruled by the King, American society was much different than life in England. Think about religious freedom, land freedom. There was also a new middle class. A merchant in England would still be second class to a land owner (i.e. nobleman); where as Hancock was a greatly admired and respected member of Bostonian society. The Colonial system is not a society, it was a means of populating a new territory in a vast empire.
Hoped that help
How does the modern economy work? What keeps it alive?
It seems like very little money is spent on actual products that are essential to life. Things like agricultural output. Consider all the highly qualified professionals earning their 100,000 + per year. All the barristers, lawyers, merchant bankers, computer programmers, business owners etc...
What is the foundation for all these huge incomes extremely in excess of what is necessary to live. What is the basis for it?
Do they lift each other up? The money is circulating after all, its not being locked up in a drawer. Does credit creation by banks come into it?
Reading back my question, it sounds a little naive, but hopefully you get what I'm driving at.
Question answered by angelwith4faces
Well, you are asking a very fundamental question that economists would argue this way.
They believe that the market determines prices and wages based on how scarce yet how in demand things are. Although bread is essential for life, there is so much of it and it costs so little, that the price of bread is low. Now, let's say one person owned all the bread making and bread was all the food you eat. That person could then raise the price of food until the average person starved, or he could lower it a bit until the most people would spend the most money and hence he would maximize his income. His profit would be huge, and he would be paid more than Bill Gates.
In reality, bread is relatively easy to make, there's lots of substitutes, and competition in the market reduces profits to acceptable levels.
So, we can go from market to market, examining the supplies and demands of each and looking at how competitive it is. Although the bread industry produces billions in sales, it supports a relatively small staff of managers, analysts, marketers and so on. These people all get paid based on supply and demand. If the supply is low and the demand is high for highly skilled programmers or talented managers, they will earn a high salary.
Although this theory seems commonsense, it actually has a fatal flaw. It assumes that all these well paid people are actually productive, and competitive, when in fact that is highly doubtful. It is rather likely that society has certain norms and customs in which some people are hired and compete, and others co-operate. That is closer to my understanding of how things are.
What were merchants' live like in relation to the feudal system?
I mean the feudal system during the 16th century reformation of Martin Luther which involved the clergy at the top of the feudal system, merchants the middle class and peasants bottom class
Question answered by madderthanthehatter
Keep in mind that I'm condensing a lot of history into just a few sentences. But the merchants gradually displaced the Feudal Lords, Barons, the large land owners to such an extent that the heads of the feudal system have just about dissappeared from history.
Merchants increasingly grew more wealthy and the political powers that govern, over time, were foreced to go to the merchants as a source as funds for governing while the feudal lords experienced a slow erosion of their power.
Agriculture, now as in feudal times produced agriculture commodities. This meant that Feudal Lords starting at the 16th century were "price takers." The price of wheat was the price of wheat. The price of cattle was the price of cattle, the price of hogs were the price of hogs, the price of horses were the price of horses. One Feudal Lord could not set prices higher than his neighbour. Secondly technology of agriculture in the 16th century had not changed. Land owners did not have the ability to increase production or reduce the price of production except for lowering the price of labor. Agriculture did gain significant changes in technology that did allow them to do these things until the 19th century, but in the16th they were unknown and it was this lack of technology that allowed merchants to slowly take their place not only in rich life-styles but political power as well.
Merchants on the other hand, such as you can still see as a tourist if you visit Venice, Florence and Genoa in the 15th century, merchants traded silks and spices that came from the Silk Road allowed Merchants to set prices, they were "prices setters" so governments turned to Merchants for funds and they took away political power that used to belong to the Feudal Lords. The twin abilities to set prices and the gain of political power allowed the Merchant class to enjoy the life style that the Feudal Lords used to enjoy. When you visit Venice you also see that Merchants started to branch out in manufacturing as in Venice's glass works, new ways of weaving, the start of new inventions that increased the Merchant classes economic growth, while Feudal Lord's economic growth remained stagnant at best.
Once the New World was discovered in the 16th century, the amount of trade, new products from North and South America and a geometrical increase in the imports from the Far East opened by new trade routes discovered by the Portugese spelled the end of Feudalism.
To add insult to injury, the discovery of the new world allowed Merchant Classes to become the Feudal Lord's direct competitors as merchants established plantations in the New World which was fuelled by slave labor.
Through a confluence of hisotrical events the Merchant Classes experienced an exponentional increase in wealth from new trade routes, cheaper agricultural products through plantations and the birth pangs of new technologies that would lead to new products as well as the industrial revolution.
Feudal Lords had only one way to fight back and that was to squeeze their workforces' wages. This lead to a series of revolutions and political upheaval and as you noted, the wealth and life style of the merchant class started to eclipse the wealth and life style of the feudal lords starting even in the century before but was becoming more and more evident to the ruling classes during the 16th century. To whom would they go to for money in exchange for political power?
Add to this that Merchants also established a multitude of colonies overseas in order to enhance their trading empires but also added lands, colonies and powers to the political classes that were undreamed of 200 years ago.
The titles and powers that used to belong to the Feudal Lords belong to industrialists and even Rock Stars have displaced Feudal Lords and Ladies.
There are a few Feudal Lords left of course, but's it's almost a literature and movie cliche: a Feudal Lord marrys his daughter or son to an industrialist's daughter or son because they can't afford to hang on to their lands anymore without the money the marriage brings. All the industrialist gets is the title of "Lord" or "Lady" but to them it's only a bauble, almost a rich man's a toy like their art collections or private jets.
In Venice, Florence and Genoa, the Merchant classes future life style were evident during the 16th Century. In England, France, all over Europe, the castles and lands that used to belong to Feudal Lords had started to pass into the hands of the Merchants, but the Feudal Lords had been in power for so long, they weren't paying attention.
Can someone please explain to me the significance of a tariff?
I'm a high school sophomore who's taking AP U.S. History and the topic of tariffs arises quite frequently. I understand that a tariff is a tax that's imposed on imports or exports and the main purpose of it is to protect home industries from foreign competition but how does it do that exactly? Northern merchants supported tariffs while southern exporters resented them. Can someone please tell me why? And please don't give me a crap answer like the definition of a tariff. I already know what it is. I just need someone to further elaborate on it and its significance.
Question answered by Randal
Tariffs are usually associated with protectionism, a government's policy of controlling trade between nations to support the interests of its own citizens. For economic reasons, tariffs are usually imposed on imported goods.
A PROTECTIVE tariff is intended to artificially inflate prices of imports and protect domestic industries from foreign competition
The reason that the Northern merchants supported a "protective" tarrif is that they wished to protect their new industries from the competition of the same iIndustries in foreign countries. They wished to have the 'domestic' market pay them the prices they wanted/needed to become established. However, the exporters from the sourhern states wanted these protective tarriffs removed. There was very little industry in the South, so they had few if any 'industry' to protect. The tarriff on goods produced in the North increased the prices that needed to be paid by thepeople in the South. Also, since the southern states were agricultural, their exports were basic agricultural commodities, amd [;acvomg a tarriff on these exports would simply make their agricultural products more expensive to the rest of the world. Thus, the 'outside world' would go somewhare else to purchase their agricultural commodities. They would purchase these agricultural commodities from the lowest cost supplier (which meant someone who did not add the cost of a tarriff) to these commodities.
I hope this is helpful to you.