Is The Merchant of Venice anti-Semitic?

[QueCubed]

We are doing a project for my Shakespeare class, and the question is basically, "Does The Merchant of Venice's portrayal of Shylock constitute anti-semitism?"

[JamCrackers]

Yes, in your culture, you are forbidden to make them villains. They are hero only. And no, that is not equality. That is a form of race supremacy, special elite privilege based on ancestry.

[MANICHAEAN]

QC

On the face of it "yes," but then remember the prejudices that were still prevalent in Shakespeare's time. And yet The Bard seems to transcend this in aspects of the character of Shylock and I actually have sympathy with him. After all, a deal's a deal!

JC
Dear, dear. You really need help.

Regards
M.

[JamCrackers]

Why would I need help? A famous Italian American said recently, when the folk music of his people is played, everyone around believes a MOBSTER GANGSTER CRIME FAMILY EVENT is happening. Ethnic hating Italians is entirely fine. It is a genre. In the Star Wars cartoon, they made a GERMAN ALIEN. A German Alien? Yes, they needed a chemical bio attack villain, so they made the Alien German accent. It is totally ok to ethnic hate Germans. In Israeli culture, you have three options: 1) Silence. 2) Flattery. 3) Be an anti-Semite. Shylock does not flatter their ethnicity = it is anti-Semite.

Bear in mind, I am the one arguing FOR equality. My side is, everyone gets equal rules equally and equal treatment.

Your side is: Italians, Germans, Blacks, various other groups SHOULD BE stereotype ethnic villains. But then other groups should get special rules where they never get bashed.

FACT: What do you call a homosexual pedophile? You call them a heterosexual pedophile. They have protected rights. They can't be villains.

In Western Civilization, some peoples get one treatment, other people get the opposite.
I hope you recover your race hate soon.
I prefer everyone getting equal opportunity.

[Charles Darnay]

It is a difficult question indeed and one without an obvious angle, because it depends on what angle you take.

Keep in mind that when Merchant was first staged in the mid-1590s, Jews had been expelled from England for over 3 centuries. No one in England would have met a Jew, or known what a Jew looked like. This was the same time that the Church portrayed Jews as devils (with actual horns), so believe that a Jew had horns and a tail, and fangs, was not terribly uncommon.

Also bear in mind other notable portrayals of Jews in theatre around the same time: the most famous is Barabbas from Marlowe's Jew of Malta. Now Barabbas was both a villain and a clown who freely admitted to such acts as poisoning wells. There was no way to look at Barabbas sympathetically - he was evil.

Shylock transcends Barabbas as a character, but as I have argued before, he is not sympathetic, really. People have twisted his speech in III.i to make him sound sympathetic, but this is really itself a twisted sense of morals. But what Shakespeare does in Merchant of Venice is give us a Jew (Shylock) seen through the eyes of the Christian heroes.

The scene where Solanio is telling the story of Shylock running around screaming "my daughter, my duckets!" is a perfect example of this: we do not see Shylock doing this, only a report of it. We actually see Shylock doing very little except clinging to his bond. He appears in only 4 scenes - two of which he does nothing that could count him a villain.

Meanwhile, the Christians who are meant to be the paragons of good are themselves not so. Bassanio is a player, and Portia, that great angel, is a hypocrite. Her "quality of mercy" speech is as perverted (morally speaking) as Shylock's "if you prick us speech" - she is no better. She preaches mercy and then luxuriates in her trap that she sets up for Shylock.

So do we see an anti-Jewish portrayal of Shylock - yes, but I believe in a way that illustrates how society works not to contribute to it.

Merchant of Venice is a comedy, or it was. It is now seen as a problem play or dark comedy, but this was not the case. It is not until the 20th century that racial morals enter into it, and the ideal playing of this piece would be as a complete farce where no one is spared - so that the audience may see how base humanity really is.

[MANICHAEAN]

Dear Charles
Thank you. A very interesting and balanced reply.

JC

1.In your initial response to QueCubed you talk about “in your culture.” How do you know what his/her culture is?

2.In your response to myself you refer to, “Your side is” and then break into some broad generalization that I have a preference for one racial group over a broad spectrum of others. You are ahead of yourself.

3.As for the bit about the “three options in Israeli culture,” it is about as simplistic and limited an assumption as one could possibly make, when one is in a sober state of enlightment.

Regards
M.

[JamCrackers]

He asked in English.
That is how I know what his culture is.
You are not very good at this.
Oh wait, this is you,
English is this thing called a language. There are others.
You should look up the topic. We have a whole planet and everything.

[Charles Darnay]

He asked in English.
That is how I know what his culture is.
You are not very good at this.
Oh wait, this is you,
English is this thing called a language. There are others.
You should look up the topic. We have a whole planet and everything.

I was in china once and I met this man who spoke English. The strange thing was that he had never been out of China! Isn't that so bizarre?

Seriously though...what?

[QueCubed]

We are doing a project for our Shakespeare lecture which basically asks, "Does Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock constitute anti-Semitism? Can art transcend contemporary bigotry?"

[JuniperWoolf]

FACT: What do you call a homosexual pedophile? You call them a heterosexual pedophile. They have protected rights. They can't be villains.

What?

[JamCrackers]

Please don't play stupid. You can do it fine naturally. Since you demanded me to explain it, I shall. DICTIONARY: Homosexual: having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex. What sex is a man? Male. What sex is a boy? Male. Sexual attraction male to male is homosexuality? Yes. Priests who attack boys are homosexuals? Yes. Priests who attack boys are pedophiles? Yes. Does Western society go around complaining about the epidemic of homosexuals attack boys in pedophile assaults? No, they do not. No one makes bad jokes about priests attacking GIRLS now do they? No, they don't. It is a predatory homosexual behavior. We just never call it that because in our society, people with elite rights never get to be villains. Only people with second class rights are villains. Christian is second class: YES, you can be called a Christian Pedophile. NO, you can't be called a homosexual pedophile.

I do understand where my opponents are coming from. Western society is entirely hypocritical. Everything a Westerner says is a lie in reverse. If a Westerner wants to stop bullying? He will bully you to stop. If they want to stop hate, they will hate you because 'you deserve it.' In my society, you never ever need to tell anyone what your sex is, what your race is, what your religion is. In my society, you are just a human, with exactly the same rights as another human. The question is: is Shylock anti-Semite? Yes it is. Why? Because Judaism is in the protected class. Being hypocrites as I said, what will I be told? I will be told they are not in a protected class, but - they are - and I must be punished for breaking that rule. I said something, anything, that was not pure flattery, thus I am filled with hate. Feel Free: what is it 500 years? Nice. You can use the entire Earth and the last 500 years. Think on that 500 years. Name every Jewish villain ever put in fiction in the last 500 years anywhere on Earth. Before you lie that you won't because it would take too long, I am telling you in advance I know you are lying. You can't make the list, because it will make you lose the debate. Who will you name? Blofeld from James Bond? All you can do is list a few exceptions that make the rule. There are enough German, Italian, or Black villains to fill a phone book. Yes, I said something not flattering so yes you are angry that it is anti-Semite to say anything not flattering. That is what I accused in the first place. Proving me right won't hurt that much.

[stlukesguild]

What is it with this slew of new members recently coming on the boards and immediately taking to insulting long-term members and calling their intelligence into question without the faintest idea of who they are talking to, or how intelligent or educated that person might be. It strikes me as pre-pubescents gone on rampage. Too many Fruit Loops for breakfast?

Is Shylock an antisemitic character? Considering that he is but a single Jewish villain out of a rather sizable body of villains, I would suggest no. I would also suggest that Shakespeare's characters are almost always too complex to be reduced to a simple stereotype. At the same time... all artists are formed by the beliefs and values of their time and place. Elements that we would find antisemitic, sexist, racist, nationalistic, imperialistic would have been accepted as status quo for those in another time and place. What is necessary to remember is that we don't stand in high judgment of the "inferior" thinking of the past. Much that we accept would undoubtedly have been thought of as morally suspect by any number of past cultures, and much that we believe in or accept now will undoubtedly be looked upon with disdain by future generations.

This is one of the reasons that aesthetic judgment needs to be kept separate from judgment rooted in non-artistic considerations: morality, ethics, social, economic, or political considerations, etc... This is not to say that we should simply skim past those elements that raise questions... but we should place these moral issues within a historical context and question just how central they are to the work of art as a whole. Is making an antisemitic comment a central aspect of The Merchant of Venice? Or could the villain have just as likely have been Spanish, or Dutch, or French?

[JuniperWoolf]

Please don't play stupid. You can do it fine naturally. Since you demanded me to explain it, I shall. DICTIONARY: Homosexual: having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex. What sex is a man? Male. What sex is a boy? Male. Sexual attraction male to male is homosexuality? Yes. Priests who attack boys are homosexuals? Yes. Priests who attack boys are pedophiles? Yes. Does Western society go around complaining about the epidemic of homosexuals attack boys in pedophile assaults? No, they do not. No one makes bad jokes about priests attacking GIRLS now do they? No, they don't. It is a predatory homosexual behavior. We just never call it that because in our society, people with elite rights never get to be villains. Only people with second class rights are villains. Christian is second class: YES, you can be called a Christian Pedophile. NO, you can't be called a homosexual pedophile.

That's because the gender of the children isn't the problem. It's the CHILDREN part that's the problem. They aren't called "heterosexual" or "homosexual" pedophiles, they're just pedophiles. The crime is equally wrong whether the children are male or female. Also, there are many more female victims of statutory rape than there are male so clearly pedophelia isn't correlated to homosexuality. And homosexuals are elite? That's a new one. They aren't allowed to get married in most places, so they aren't even legally equal.

[JamCrackers]

No, the children is not the problem. As an expert on history and human behavior, I can assure you that sex with children has been in practice since the Stone Age. In various cultures, it was common practice. I'm sure Ancient Rome did their share of it and it wasn't a crime. Why is this important? Because to a person who lives in reality and not politically correct fantasy land, we are talking about human behavior. What behavior? The orgasm. I assume you know what an orgasm is. Some like to argue rape is about 'hate' and not orgasms. I have never heard of the no-orgasm rapist, but I assume it could be possible, just utterly unlikely. Orgasm is the original human drug. It is pleasure. The human ape wants to ring his pleasure bell. The pedophile is a sexual predator, an orgasm predator if you will. It is about fantasy. It is about the term erotic. We agree that FANTASY EROTIC URGES that involve, dead people, children, rape, various bad things - are bad. They are things people should not do, but they do anyway. In terms of the human animal, what is the situation? A 'bad' human has fantasy erotic sexual urges directed toward their victim. In this specific case, these are MEN (males) who experience fantasy erotic urges toward BOYS (males). It is a homosexual pedophile urge. They DESIRE another male. They are males who desire interaction with a male body.

Are homosexuals elite? 100% yes.
If you murder a homosexual, it will be a 'hate crime'. You murdered an elite citizen and your punishment will be increased accordingly. If you are a homosexual pedophile, (you are the ideal expert to argue this), if you are a homosexual, a regular one for many years, the very moment you get arrested for raping a boy, the same second you get arrested, you are no longer homosexual. Were you homosexual for decades? Sure. Yep. And after police grab you raping a boy... POOF! you are no longer homosexual. But, why? Why all this trouble? Why do you care? Why is it an uphill battle to call homosexuals equal? That is what equal means. There are like anyone else. They can be a criminal like anyone else. They can be a homosexual bank robber, a homosexual terrorist, a homosexual drunk driver, and yes a homosexual pedophile. If you had the character to live in truth like I do, you could just admit the truth, which I know you do know. IT IS A SOCIAL THOUGHT CRIME IN YOUR CIVILIZATION TO MENTION THEIR TITLE IN ANY NEGATIVE FASHION, period. Ever. Not ever. If you EVER! say the word homosexual, you will say it in some flattering fashion, is some positive reaffirming way, or you are a hate thinker. Don't flatter yourself that you make any decisions in this world. YOU DON'T. People with power you don't have forced you to behave this way. No one ever has or will ask your opinion. YOU DON'T GET AN OPINION. You do what you are told, behave as you are told, or your mentally challenged buddies will outcast you as a hate heretic. Nothing we talk about will change that. Personally, my dream is you could grasp I am not waiting for your agreement. Do you really think I believe you are first regular Joe I have ever met who would be capable of shrugging off their social conformity? You have better odds of growing deer antlers out of your skull, than 'change'. No one changes. Me? I was trained from a young age to think for myself. That is why I stand alone speaking the obvious cruel reality of nature. That is why you defend the television culture who informed you what you think. What will you say? You wrote what they say on TV? No, you didn't. People not you made all these decisions. People not you decided that Merchant of Venice was 'anti-Semite' years ago. YOU DON'T GET AN OPINION. There have been college plays of it cancelled before. Class rooms have banned the book before. Elite Social Classes in your culture get 'hero only/victim only' treatment. They are never ever stereotype villains. Oh sure, you villain second class groups all the time, without shame. Second class humans don't get 'hate protection'. You can rip them to shreds.

Here I am, just say it about me: "JamCrackers, you are filled with hate, homophobia, and dozens of other insulting terms, because you said the name of a protected elite class in unflattering terms. Mention them as spectacular gifts, or mention them not at all."

[Gladys]

Is Shakespeare anti-Semitic simply by reflecting, in his characters, the attitudes of typical Venetians to Jews?

Is his treatment of Shylock unsympathetic? I suspect the audience, even in Shakespeare's time, may feel some empathy for Shylock because the injustice Jews chronically experience is persuasively presented by Shylock himself. Shylock's final punishment seems disproportionate to his crime. And besides, Antonio is hardly a likeable character.

[YesNo]

If antisemitism is defined as "hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity" as in http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/40258.htm, then I suspect it is antisemitic.

Even though there might be individual sympathy toward Shylock, although I can't remember any at the moment, the fact that he was described as Jewish helps to bring out the bigotry in the audience. Why didn't Shakespeare make Shylock a Christian? Or not mention Shylock's religion entirely?

[Drkshadow03]

The portrayal of Shylock is definitely anti-Semitic. He is portrayed in extremely stereotypical terms (greedy, blood-thirsty) that are staples of anti-Semitism. His Christian tormentors (which are the main characters of the play) are depicted as sympathetic throughout and it's only a modern audience that is going to be uncomfortable with the ending in which Shylock loses everything and is forcefully converted on pains of death.

Shakespeare might excel at portraying three-dimensional characters with complicated motivations, but in many of his plays it is pretty obvious who the villains of the piece are (Iago in Othello and Laertes in Hamlet for example). Shylock is definitely portrayed as the villain of the piece. Often people will point to Shylock's famous speech in Act 3 Scene 1, "Hath not a Jew eyes . . ." in which Shylock points out his common humanity and his reason for desire of revenge due to institutional persecution by Christians. Nevertheless, it's not a convincing argument that one single speech overturns what is otherwise a really stereotypical portrayal. Also, there seems to be other reasons for the speech. One, it is there more to give a motivation for Shylock's behavior than generate sympathy for him. Two, a reader can interpret his words in which he claims he learned revenge from Christian's getting revenge on Jews as a misreading of the Christian characters around him who ultimately show him what the audience most likely would've perceived as mercy in the end.

In Act 4, during the trial, the Duke pardons Shylock, purposefully depicting the supposed difference between Jewish strict observance of the law to the letter (wanting his pound of flesh as promised and then having that backfire when the court demands he follow it to the letter) and Christian mercy and forgiveness. In the end Shylock is forcefully converted to Christianity on pains of death. And as Gratiano states this is a mercy as it will lead him to life (symbolized by the "fount") instead of the death he believes Shylock deserves.

[Gladys]

Why didn't Shakespeare make Shylock a Christian? Or not mention Shylock's religion entirely?

Shakespeare deliberately created Shylock so as to write about racial and religious prejudice, among other things. Is that unacceptable?


He is portrayed in extremely stereotypical terms (greedy, blood-thirsty) that are staples of anti-Semitism. His Christian tormentors (which are the main characters of the play) are depicted as sympathetic throughout and it's only a modern audience that is going to be uncomfortable with the ending in which Shylock loses everything and is forcefully converted on pains of death.

Shakespeare was a playwright, not a self-sacrificing radical reformer risking all for societal change. I doubt we can say that his surpassing genius was oblivious to how a modern audience, or someone of similar persuasion, would interpret the play in respect to Shylock. And is the arrogant Antonio really depicted as sympathetic throughout?

[Drkshadow03]

Shakespeare deliberately created Shylock so as to write about racial and religious prejudice, among other things. Is that unacceptable?



Shakespeare was a playwright, not a self-sacrificing radical reformer risking all for societal change. I doubt we can say that his surpassing genius was oblivious to how a modern audience, or someone of similar persuasion, would interpret the play in respect to Shylock. And is the arrogant Antonio really depicted as sympathetic throughout?

And any writer almost always has their own contemporary audience first and foremost in mind, which would've been Christian and one that didn't have much interaction with Jews since they had all been expelled from England (with the exception of a small group that came after they had been expelled from Spain). Shakespeare never could have known a Post-Holocaust generation would've developed a different relationship to anti-Semitism and the Enlightenment weakened the predominance of Christianity as a part of European society. Genius that he was, I don't think he could've foreseen either of those two events.

Shakespeare gives vices to his heroes (think Hamlet and Othello who make terrible and tragic mistakes), but that doesn't make them not the hero of those stories. Just as he gives complex and semi-justified reasons (at least in their own minds) to his villains as I already noted. This doesn't prevent them from being the villain, however.

[OrphanPip]

The simple problem with your viewpoint Jam is that it has no bearing in reality.

There's a wonderful little breakdown of the research on pedophile's sexual orientation at UC Davis' website: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Most pedophiles are classified as fixated by psychologist, which is their term for a pedophile who can not have sexual relationships with adults and is only aroused by children. Some pedophiles are classed as regressive, which means they have sex with children sometimes but often they have sexual relations with adults. The thing is that there is no identified connection between the choice of gender of child they molest and the choice of adult partners.

So:

"Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that 'in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males...'"

" Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994)."

The use of adult sexual orientation categories, like heterosexual or homosexual to identify pedophiles is often done by Conservative groups, but it doesn't reflect the scientific evidence we have about pedophiles. The simple fact of the matter is that the object choice of pedophiles does not imply anything about an adult sexual orientation.

You yourself are trying to conflate pederastic relationships (which even in ancient Greece used to involve 14-16 year old boys) as pedophilia, but most psychologist would disagree that this involves any pathological sexual interest. It is morally wrong for an adult to engage sexually with a teenager for many reasons, but it's not the same thing as pedophilia.

[Charles Darnay]

Shakespeare deliberately created Shylock so as to write about racial and religious prejudice, among other things. Is that unacceptable?


Actually, Merchant, like most plays, are based on an earlier text. Merchant is taken from Il Pecorone, which focuses on Bassanio's (can't remember the character's name in Pecorone) quest to obtain Portia.

(Bassanio) has to borrow money from his benefactor, (Antonio) and in order to get the money, (Antonio) has to borrow money from a Jew.

So Shylock as Jew was established before Shakespeare got to the play. What Shakespeare does is 1. give the Jew a name and 2. greatly expand on his character.

[JuniperWoolf]

So I guess today I read a post from someone who was pro-rape but anti-homosexuality. The sad thing is, I'm not even surprised.

[Gladys]

Actually, Merchant, like most plays, are based on an earlier text...So Shylock as Jew was established before Shakespeare got to the play. What Shakespeare does is 1. give the Jew a name and 2. greatly expand on his character.

Notwithstanding, Shakespeare deliberately fashioned Shylock - as we see him in The Merchant of Venice - so as to write about racial and religious prejudice. The issue here is: what has Shakespeare to say?


And any writer almost always has their own contemporary audience first and foremost in mind, which would've been Christian and one that didn't have much interaction with Jews since they had all been expelled from England...

I agree. Nevertheless, Shakespeare's audience is no more homogeneous than audiences today. An insightful few present at the Globe Theatre, and perhaps the playwright himself, may have held views on anti-Semitism even more enlightened than those of our post Holocaust generations. Atrocities against Jews goes back millennia.

[Lokasenna]

My two cents, for what they are worth...

I think Shylock is a comedy Jew, of the type that a contemporary audience would have understood. I do, however, think that it is a testament to Shakespeare's craft, intended or otherwise, that he bestowed upon him such a deep and multi-faceted character that he can be viewed in a very sympathetic light (as opposed to, say, Barabas). The quandry is to decide whether, to borrow from another Shakespeare play, he is 'more sinned against than sinning.'

Culturally, it is hard for Westerners living in a post-Holocaust world to view Merchant as anything other than the tragedy of Shylock. I do, however, remeber reading an article in my undergrad days concerning performances of the play in the far east, where Shylock was universally portrayed as a malicious clown whose fall was considered by audiences both funny and entirely deserved. I think that says quite a lot about how our cultural background shapes our perceptions - could you imagine such a staging of it done in Israel?

For the record, I've seen versions that play up both the tragedy and comedy side of things, and I think both are relevant and acceptable interpretations.

[kiki1982]

You can better hope that JC doesn't find this thread...

I tend to agree with Lokasenna and someone else in that other thread who pointed out that Shylock's speech about also being human and bla-bla-bla is probably rather ironic and a bit pathetic than actually pity-inducing. It probably depends on how you deliver it and how his other speeches and comportment are interpreted. It is indeed difficult in post-Holocaust Europe to (be allowed to) view Shylock that way, but it is probably the most appropriate. I can imagine that the end of the play in the Duke of Venice's palace can produce such a pantomime-like moment where the audience could go 'boooo' and 'hear hear' and 'haha, you stupid Jew' as audiences did back then. Particularly the parterre where the common folk used to stand.

Someone in the other thread also pointed out that Shylock only appears a handful of times and that his last speech of 'my daughter, my ducats' was reported through someone else. And Jews had been banned entirely from England for a few 100 years by then. The audience only had the church's word for it that they were gangsters who poisoned wells.

The question is whether Shakespeare was not actually addressing the fact that, if the Jews were made the nasty villains because they wanted their money's worth, whether not Christians were to blame because of their greed. If you buy with what money you have, you do not need a Jew. If you want to buy more than what money you have, you do need one. And then you have to pay him back. If you agree to a deal that will essentially cut off a piece of you, then who is to blame? The Jew who proposes it or you yourself for agreeing to it? If Bassanio hadn't squandered his estate and wanted Portia for her money, and Antonio hadn't lent Bassanio money he didn't have and agreed to shedding a piece of himself if he could not pay, then nothing of the sort would have happened.

They of course all blame the Jew and get their way because they are in the majority, but is that just? And the fact that Shylock actually wishes to cut out Antonio's heart, is that not a symbol for the community voluntary giving up everything that is right and proper for money? Does the heart not contain the soul?

The question is whether Bassanio is not really after the gold rather than the lead, at the price of being dominated by his wife (or that is the impression I got) which is also quite shameful. The other two of Portia's suitors are maybe a bit foolish for assuming that the right caskets are the gold and the silver one and for wanting Portia as a wife because she is beautiful, but Bassanio leaves with the express purpose of getting Portia for her money as he has none left.

All that glitters is not gold, indeed.

So, yes, antisemitic, but I think that stamp is pretty irrelevant as people back then did not know any better (and what is 'better' anyway?).

[Drkshadow03]

My two cents, for what they are worth...

I think Shylock is a comedy Jew, of the type that a contemporary audience would have understood. I do, however, think that it is a testament to Shakespeare's craft, intended or otherwise, that he bestowed upon him such a deep and multi-faceted character that he can be viewed in a very sympathetic light (as opposed to, say, Barabas). The quandry is to decide whether, to borrow from another Shakespeare play, he is 'more sinned against than sinning.'

Culturally, it is hard for Westerners living in a post-Holocaust world to view Merchant as anything other than the tragedy of Shylock. I do, however, remeber reading an article in my undergrad days concerning performances of the play in the far east, where Shylock was universally portrayed as a malicious clown whose fall was considered by audiences both funny and entirely deserved. I think that says quite a lot about how our cultural background shapes our perceptions - could you imagine such a staging of it done in Israel?

For the record, I've seen versions that play up both the tragedy and comedy side of things, and I think both are relevant and acceptable interpretations.

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with interpreting the play as being more of a tragedy for Shylock, but it seems doubtful that the original audience viewed it that way.

Gladys seems to have much more confidence in Shakespeare's enlightened attitudes than I do.

[My2cents]

We are doing a project for my Shakespeare class, and the question is basically, "Does The Merchant of Venice's portrayal of Shylock constitute anti-semitism?"

There's an element of scapegoating (Antonio vis-a-vis Shylock) which legitimizes the antisemitism claim, but that would be grossly simplifying Shakespeare's complex art. The pity Shakespeare is able to elicit on behalf of Shylock (the Jew) is possibly the first of its kind in Western literature.

[Hawkman]

The question of whether The Merchant of Venice is an anti-Semitic play is often raised and it is not unreasonable to question the depiction of Shylock as stereotypical in that he is a Jewish moneylender. This would certainly have had resonance with a late medieval audience, who in England at least, would have been highly unlikely to have knowingly interacted with any Jews, since King Edward 1st’s edict of expulsion in 1289. Openly being a Jew in England would have been seriously hazardous thereafter, at least until Oliver Cromwell actively encouraged a formal return of Jews to the country in 1655.

That a long-standing tradition of anti-Semitism existed within the Christian world cannot be denied, however irrational it would seem, given the fact that Jesus was Jewish, as were most, if not all, of the original 12 disciples.


At the time, the Christian community would have considered itself a part of the wider Jewish community, with most of the leaders of the Church being Jewish or Jewish proselytes. (Wikipedia)

In fact it was Paul who eventually decreed that it should not be necessary to be circumcised to become a Christian.

However, given the rise of Christianity to being the official adopted faith of the Roman Empire under Constantine, The might of Rome had to deflect the guilt of having executed Christ on the cross (after all, it was a Roman [Pilate] who condemned Jesus to crucifixion [a Roman method of execution], and Roman legionaries who performed the act) and so it became the position of the established church to condemn Jews as Christ killers and deniers of the coming of the Messiah.

By the time of the medieval period all manner of depictions of Jews as demons and devils were commonplace. Just about any outlandish rumour of Jewish religious practice would be believed, even that they would kidnap Christian children to sacrifice at Passover in order to use their blood to make matzah. Popular anti-Jewish feeling could easily erupt into violence; in 1190 more than a hundred Jews were massacred during the Copper Gate riots in York.

Legislation and Guild proscription effectively limited any gainful employment for Jews to moneylending, although there appears to be some disagreement between Bible, Talmud and subsequent rabbinical texts as to whether usury, the charging of interest on a loan, is permissible or not - either between Jews or by Jew to gentile.

However, given that there was little else available to Jews, moneylending certainly became a common occupation which was subsequently exploited and taxed by the Crown, at least until Longshanks expelled them.

In 1492, Jews were expelled from Spain and in 1497 from Portugal. A Substantial number of Sephardic Jews sought refuge in England, but, in order to remain, they had to be seen to be converts to Christianity, although in 1542 many were arrested on suspicion of being Jews.

The 16th Century saw a number of persons named Lopez immigrating to England from Portugal, having been driven from the country by the inquisition, and they may well have been members of the same family. One of the most prominent of these was one Rodrigo Lopez, a physician, who having been raised as a Roman Catholic conversos in Portugal was nevertheless believed to be a Marrano or hidden Jew. On arriving in London in 1559 he’d have been in a kind of double jeopardy as Roman Catholics would have been no more popular than Jews in Protestant England. Publicly protestant, he rose to some prominence in his profession and became physician to Elizabeth the First.

Bizarrely he became a victim of court politicking and was accused of being part of a Catholic conspiracy to assassinate the queen. Also accused of being a secret Jew he was eventually hanged in 1594, declaring on the scaffold that he loved the queen as he loved Jesus, at which the crowd laughed, taking it for a confession of guilt. Shakespeare may even have witnessed this.

So this is the background of popular attitude towards Jews in Shakespeare’s time. Now let us address the opening question of whether The Merchant of Venice, is, in fact, an anti-Semitic play.

Surely, if the play is overtly anti-Semitic, all Jews would be depicted as evil, mean, cruel and scheming, after all, Shylock is not the only Jewish character in the play. Is his daughter, Jessica depicted as anything other than a lovely young girl in love with a gentile? Well, she certainly complains of her father and she does convert willingly to Christianity in order to enjoy her union with Lorenzo, so perhaps she can’t be seen to be a very committed Jewess. There is another Jewish character, that of Tubal, a friend of Shylock’s against whom no complaint is made by any character.

But what of Shylock himself? He is undoubtedly anti-Christian, when Antonio and Shylock first come face to face in the play, Shylock tells the audience directly:

“How like a fawning publican he looks!
I hate him for he is Christian;”

But is Antonio hated just for being Christian? Shylock’s treatment at the hands of Antonio has been far from gentle. He has been given good reason to detest the man and it is entirely possible that Shylock’s view of Christians has been grievously coloured by his treatment by a man who is proclaimed a good Christian by all his friends and acquaintances. Bassanio’s glowing praise of his friend would be construed as borderline homosexual love in some quarters and by today’s standards. Although it is not Antonio who engages Shylock for the supplying of funds, but Bassanio, who needs money to pursue Portia, Antonio agrees to stand surety for the loan. Effectively he is going to someone whom he has publicly insulted and assaulted, whose business practices he has denounced and personally undermined, and effectively says, “You dog, give my friend some money, I’ll cover him, I’m good for it.” Antonio is no more loving of Jews than Shylock is of Christians.

The arrogance (and stupidity) of the man is staggering! In the opening scene, Antonio is clearly depicted as a cautious man who doesn’t put all his eggs in one basket; he has ventured his fortune divided between several ships, yet now he agrees to put his life at hazard for a mere three thousand ducats because his friend has the hots for Portia. What a twit! One might argue that he deserves to come a cropper!

Antonio isn’t even the principle character in the play; he’s a mere device, little more than a McGuffin who stews in the background as the action happens elsewhere.

Shylock, however, has considerably more depth. His is not a character motivated by blind prejudice; he has good reason to hate Antonio. But, and it’s a big but, his character is over the top. He is necessarily the villain who drives the plot in this Shakespearian comedy, which is pretty much an adult pantomime. Shylock is not just a Jewish moneylender; he is a caricature of a Jewish moneylender. However, one must acknowledge that this caricature would likely have been very much to a prejudicial audience’s taste.

It would be fair to say that Shylock is entitled to a little revenge upon his tormentor. Not only has he been publicly reviled by Antonio, but is subsequently robbed of his daughter (and a large amount of money) by one of Antonio’s friends. His revenge is taken to an extreme though. He actively conspires to kill his enemy with judicial sanction. Ruining him financially would seem to be a far more equitable recompense for the ills that he has suffered from Antonio’s behaviour.

But does he do these things because he is Jewish, or does he do them because he is a wronged and vengeful man who happens to be Jewish? The plot revolves around a debt, surety and a personal animosity between two men. Is the fact that one of them is Jewish and the other Christian, more important? Certainly the device is used to spawn a few jokes with a Christian bias, and it does add spice to the plot. But what about the other plot, Portia’s test of suitors with the three chests of gold, silver and lead. This is about not judging by appearances or having an overweening arrogance or conceit of one’s own worth over the worth of another. Is Portia a racist because she doesn’t want to marry a moor? No, she has a hankering for someone else.

For all Shylock’s machinations he does not benefit one jot. He is deprived of half his goods, he does not get repaid what he is justly owed and is forced to convert to Christianity or forfeit his life. On top of this his daughter has run off with a Christian and converted, taking a lot of his money with her. By any standards, I’d say he was pretty hard done by. True, he sought Antonio’s life, but he didn’t get to take it. His punishment, contextually, might be seen to be unjust. He certainly never received redress for the ills he suffered at Antonio’s hands. Would the Elizabethan audience have appreciated this, or would they have revelled in Shylock’s misfortune and said, “Serves him right,” because he was a Jew?

It is difficult to judge the play with the appreciation of a 16th century audience. Contemporarily we are burdened with the ghastly history of the 20th century on top of those which have intervened between. Anti-Semitism has become a glib rebuttal of even the most timid criticism or politically incorrect sentiment expressed against Jews or Judaism, even by other Jews. (One only need read Finklestein to appreciate this.)

One is minded to compare the nature and Character of Alf Garnet, a racist bigot in a comedy show, with the way Shylock is presented in the play. The Show was initially accused of being racist and bigoted, because of the ranting of its caricatured eponymous antihero, when it was, in fact, mocking racism and bigotry. Can the same not be said of The Merchant of Venice? Is the caricature of the Jewish moneylender not a vehicle which highlights attitudes towards Jews by supposedly good Christians, who spit upon them in public, revile them and expect them to mildly accept this treatment and then do them favours? Ultimately, one can only read the play and judge for one’s self, as when reading the play one is spared someone else’s interpretation, and how the play is performed might well colour one’s appreciation.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I don't know anything of Hawkman's ethnicity or religious affiliaton (if he has one) but as a Jew myself, I'm heartened
1) because if he is not a Jew, I am always deeply grateful when anon-Jew speaks dispassionately about Jews; and
2) if he is a Jew, it is nonetheless thrilling to read such a scholarly, even-handed evaluation of this question.

But surely a strong hint as to where Shakespeare stood on this issue is in


I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that

[LitNetIsGreat]

I've not got the drive to enter into such a discussion at the moment (so, OK, maybe I shouldn't respond at all) but I have to say I am getting a little fed up with all the anti-Semitic, feminist, gay and lesbian, racial, ageist - prejudice slant/open up the topic for discussion sort of question, as is the flavour of age. I'm not knocking the OP, this particular discussion (which could very well be interesting) at all, it's just a personal rant and objection to this overwhelming, it seems, obsession, for treating art as solely a means to constantly pose such 'ethical' questions. Heaven forbid a university sets a question - XYZ, is it any good?

I voted 'no' because I'm sick of art being lifted from its context and placed before a panel of 'X-factor judges' as to whether it makes the grade or gets dumped on the ever growing pile of banned and 'dangerous' books. :rant:

Edit: I just want to keep asking 'by whose standards?' By whose standards is XYZ, XYZ, by ours or theirs and so what either way? So what? Is Shakespeare pro murder because of Hamlet? Why the constant obsession?

[Drkshadow03]

I've not got the drive to enter into such a discussion at the moment (so, OK, maybe I shouldn't respond at all) but I have to say I am getting a little fed up with all the anti-Semitic, feminist, gay and lesbian, racial, ageist - prejudice slant/open up the topic for discussion sort of question, as is the flavour of age. I'm not knocking the OP, this particular discussion (which could very well be interesting) at all, it's just a personal rant and objection to this overwhelming, it seems, obsession, for treating art as solely a means to constantly pose such 'ethical' questions. Heaven forbid a university sets a question - XYZ, is it any good?

I voted 'no' because I'm sick of art being lifted from its context and placed before a panel of 'X-factor judges' as to whether it makes the grade or gets dumped on the ever growing pile of banned and 'dangerous' books. :rant:

Edit: I just want to keep asking 'by whose standards?' By whose standards is XYZ, XYZ, by ours or theirs and so what either way? So what? Is Shakespeare pro murder because of Hamlet? Why the constant obsession?

Of course, all of that ranting is really just presenting a false dichotomy. You seem to be suggesting that you can either:

a) believe Shakespeare's play is anti-Semitic and it should be considered a dangerous book and banned.

or

b) think it is great work of art with wonderful aesthetic merit.

But are those the only two choices? Why can't someone hold the view that The Merchant of Venice is a very good play with much aesthetic merit and plenty of memorable characters, but one containing an extremely problematic and anti-Semitic depiction of one of its characters. I haven't seen anyone in this thread suggest we should ban the play.

[Hawkman]

I don't know anything of Hawkman's ethnicity or religious affiliaton (if he has one) but as a Jew myself, I'm heartened
1) because if he is not a Jew, I am always deeply grateful when anon-Jew speaks dispassionately about Jews; and
2) if he is a Jew, it is nonetheless thrilling to read such a scholarly, even-handed evaluation of this question.

But surely a strong hint as to where Shakespeare stood on this issue is in


I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that

Thanks for that, Prince. I appreciate your taking the time to read and add to my little essay. I would have to agree that this particular speech of Shylock’s would certainly indicate where Shakespeare’s sympathies might have lain. It is highly eloquent in bemoaning the divisions wrought between people by prejudice.

I have always seen Shakespeare as essentially a humanist. His characters are acutely observed and very real, even when exaggerated. The Bard himself would have been no stranger to persecution. One must remember that he was growing up during the reformation, when the see-saw switches between the old Catholicism and the new Protestantism were in full swing, with Edward, Mary and then Elizabeth successively altering the religious landscape of England. Shakespeare’s own father would undoubtedly have been a covert Catholic and so it requires little imagination to picture the Swan of Avon as being one too. In a country which was actively persecuting Catholics, and where Catholic priests toured the country secretly, in disguise, hiding in priest’s holes for fear of discovery, it is not unfeasible that sympathy for a similarly persecuted religious group, whatever their ethnicity, might have held a particular resonance for him.

By the time of James 1st , Catholic conspiracy against the protestant throne was a very real threat and in 1605 there was the Gunpowder plot.

I’m not sure how familiar our readership might be with the Shakespeare connection to this major historical event, but there is more than a suggestion of his involvement at some level, in that he knew some of the conspirators and frequented their haunts. The writing of Macbeth, was, in no small part, an effort to distance himself from them after the event and prove his loyalty. For more information see:

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/gunpowderplot.html

Live and be well - H

[Gladys]

The Bard himself would have been no stranger to persecution...Shakespeare’s own father would undoubtedly have been a covert Catholic and so it requires little imagination to picture the Swan of Avon as being one too. In a country which was actively persecuting Catholics, and where Catholic priests toured the country secretly, in disguise, hiding in priest’s holes for fear of discovery, it is not unfeasible that sympathy for a similarly persecuted religious group, whatever their ethnicity, might have held a particular resonance for him.


One is minded to compare the nature and Character of Alf Garnet, a racist bigot in a comedy show, with the way Shylock is presented in the play. The Show was initially accused of being racist and bigoted, because of the ranting of its caricatured eponymous antihero, when it was, in fact, mocking racism and bigotry. Can the same not be said of The Merchant of Venice? Is the caricature of the Jewish moneylender not a vehicle which highlights attitudes towards Jews by supposedly good Christians, who spit upon them in public, revile them and expect them to mildly accept this treatment and then do them favours?

I wish I could have written this. :yesnod:

[LitNetIsGreat]

Of course, all of that ranting is really just presenting a false dichotomy. You seem to be suggesting that you can either:

a) believe Shakespeare's play is anti-Semitic and it should be considered a dangerous book and banned.

or

b) think it is great work of art with wonderful aesthetic merit.

But are those the only two choices? Why can't someone hold the view that The Merchant of Venice is a very good play with much aesthetic merit and plenty of memorable characters, but one containing an extremely problematic and anti-Semitic depiction of one of its characters. I haven't seen anyone in this thread suggest we should ban the play.

I'm not suggesting either or none or all of those things. I'm merely raising the question of the question and frankly quite fed up of modern 'ethical' debates of this sort, where 'issues' are raised and the work is entirely secondary - in fact often unimportant.

Problematic? Problematic for who? For what purpose? So what.

At the height of the brief fashion of aestheticism Wilde would argue aesthetics above intellectualism declaring that all pictures that make you say 'how interesting' as opposed to 'how beautiful' are bad pictures. We have gone beyond such narrow perspectives today of course, today art must make us think about who this 'offends', which minority figure is 'under-represented' and debate the whole (non) issue constantly. Such progress.

In fact surely it is much better just to bypass the whole debate anyway and throw bad books like this one onto the rejected offenders pile next to the likes of Conrad, Steinbeck and Dante?

[Delta40]

The debate has inspired me enough to start reading The Merchant of Venice...

[Drkshadow03]

I'm not suggesting either or none or all of those things. I'm merely raising the question of the question and frankly quite fed up of modern 'ethical' debates of this sort, where 'issues' are raised and the work is entirely secondary - in fact often unimportant.

Problematic? Problematic for who? For what purpose? So what.

At the height of the brief fashion of aestheticism Wilde would argue aesthetics above intellectualism declaring that all pictures that make you say 'how interesting' as opposed to 'how beautiful' are bad pictures. We have gone beyond such narrow perspectives today of course, today art must make us think about who this 'offends', which minority figure is 'under-represented' and debate the whole (non) issue constantly. Such progress.

In fact surely it is much better just to bypass the whole debate anyway and throw bad books like this one onto the rejected offenders pile next to the likes of Conrad, Steinbeck and Dante?

You know, for someone sick of these type of arguments you sure spend a lot of time participating in them. I am failing to see how Shylock's portrayal, a main character, isn't integral to understanding the play. On the one side, we have a few people arguing that the play isn't anti-Semitic, but rather the central themes of the play are anti-religious bigotry, which by definition would make Shylock's portrayal central to the play's theme and therefore an integral part of the play. On the other side, you have people arguing it is anti-Semitic, which would of course change the play's themes (for example I suggested the play can be read as a kind of allegory for the nature of Christianity versus the nature of Judaism), our historical understanding of how the original audience viewed the play, and the archetypal/stereotypical figures Shylock is based upon, which ultimately is an aesthetic consideration. All of that seems pretty integral to the play rather than secondary.

Now if the only thing you want out of literature and art is to finish the last page and sigh, "Ah, how beautiful" that is your business. But I find that a rather superficial and shallow way to approach art. As I already suggested there is nothing stopping anyone from appreciating art both aesthetically and intellectually.

[kiki1982]

That was not what Neely was getting at, though.

The whole thing about branding anything 'feminist', 'anti-semitic', 'lesbian' and the like is useless if it does not contribute to an overall view.

If The Mechant of Venice was read with a view to know more about attitudes towards Jews in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance or through history, why not, then that stamp of 'anti-semitism' would actually be of some use. As it is, we are here branding TMoV anti-semitic and after that? Everyone knows what people did to Jews back then (not in England, but there you go, there were none there), so it is not surpising that Shylock is portrayed like that. Frankly the muslim in the play is also stereotypical and the conceited Spanish prince as well. As are the Venician guys because they are spending money they don't have. Cue their total destruction in the 18th century. The process was already beginning in Shakespeare's days. It would become a whole with at some point 20% of the population infected with syphilis. Gambling was rife and women sold their bodies outside casinos to be able to gamble. In two generations it would go from on top of the world to a backwater where everyone was poor and tuberculosis ruled.

At a basic level, everyting is stereotypical, so yes the Jew as well. Had he been a black man, a muslim, a Chinaman, or whatever else there is to find, it would have been stereotypical.

So, why are we discussing whether or not this play is antisemitic? What purpose does it have? It is definitely anti-semitic and racist according to what we believe, but is what we believe as modern readers relevant? What is the purpose of calling it anti-semitic? Is it to put it away to be forgotten? No. Or is it to once more point out how fantastic these modern times are? Maybe no.

In short it has no purpose, because nothing will be done with it. So, indeed, as Neely says, why not stop discussing that stuff and move on to more interesting things?

[Drkshadow03]

That was not what Neely was getting at, though.

The whole thing about branding anything 'feminist', 'anti-semitic', 'lesbian' and the like is useless if it does not contribute to an overall view.

If The Mechant of Venice was read with a view to know more about attitudes towards Jews in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance or through history, why not, then that stamp of 'anti-semitism' would actually be of some use. As it is, we are here branding TMoV anti-semitic and after that? Everyone knows what people did to Jews back then (not in England, but there you go, there were none there), so it is not surpising that Shylock is portrayed like that. Frankly the muslim in the play is also stereotypical and the conceited Spanish prince as well. As are the Venician guys because they are spending money they don't have. Cue their total destruction in the 18th century. The process was already beginning in Shakespeare's days. It would become a whole with at some point 20% of the population infected with syphilis. Gambling was rife and women sold their bodies outside casinos to be able to gamble. In two generations it would go from on top of the world to a backwater where everyone was poor and tuberculosis ruled.

At a basic level, everyting is stereotypical, so yes the Jew as well. Had he been a black man, a muslim, a Chinaman, or whatever else there is to find, it would have been stereotypical.

So, why are we discussing whether or not this play is antisemitic? What purpose does it have? It is definitely anti-semitic and racist according to what we believe, but is what we believe as modern readers relevant? What is the purpose of calling it anti-semitic? Is it to put it away to be forgotten? No. Or is it to once more point out how fantastic these modern times are? Maybe no.

In short it has no purpose, because nothing will be done with it. So, indeed, as Neely says, why not stop discussing that stuff and move on to more interesting things?

Since the argument is that the main themes of the play centrally rely on the portrayal of Shylock it very much does have to do with discussing the actual play. Nothing you just said rebutted that point. So discussing whether it is anti-Semitic or not does in fact contribute to an overall view in this case; it's talking about an issue that is central to the play. That is why we're discussing it. Also, because that is what the original poster asked.

Other reasons why such discussions are important. Since the readers of The Merchant of Venice aren't just seasoned readers chalk full of historical knowledge, but also freshman and sophomores in college, this may be the first time students are encountering the play, discussing some of the problematic issues with students who might not have a very good grounding in history seems particularly relevant. They might not know common anti-Semitic tropes or the medieval attitudes towards Jews, half of them might not have ever met an actual Jew, if they're reading Marlowe it would also be helpful to place Shylock in context with other literary Jewish figures (as Lok noted in his earlier post). So no NOT everyone knows what people did to Jews back then. You're taking the background knowledge of all readers for granted.

I would agree with Neely, however, that there are works in which such discussions aren't central and discussing the absence of female characters from a feminist perspective might be secondary. My argument is this isn't one of those works. More importantly, even in the case where it is secondary there is room for such discussions in literature.

[JuniperWoolf]

So, why are we discussing whether or not this play is antisemitic? What purpose does it have?

Well, it's just some kid's topic in his literature class, isn't it? It's a common (boring) discussion, I've had dozens. "Is Heart of Darkness racist?" "does Dashiell Hammett portray women in a misogynistic way?" "is the fact that Lucy dies in Dracula but Mina lives pushing Christian standards of female behavior?" &c &c &c. So to answer to your question, I guess that's why we're discussing it.

I wouldn't say it's a worthless discussion, it's not like it's everyone is going to say "that's it, tMoV is antisemetic and that's all there is to say about it!" The question of whether Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock is antisemetic is bound to spark a discussion on whether attributing characters with stereotypical traits actually is racist (usually the consensus is "yes"), whether or not that takes away from the work and the author (usually the consensus is "no"), and it'll also lead to a discussion on the changing state of social norms in terms of political correctness (usually the consensus is "derp! We're more politically correct now!"). That's just how classes operate, there wouldn't be much of a discussion if everyone was all "sigh, how beautiful!" Racism/sexism/blah isn't ALL they talk about, or even most of it ("is Heart of Darkness a journey into the human mind?" "How does Hammett's hard-boiled detective type compare to Arthur Connan Doyle's soft boiled detective type?" "Is Helsing's approach to science legitimate?"), but it's part of it, not to mention it's unavoidable - completely ignoring Shylock's portrayal would obviously be stepping around the elephant in the room.

[YesNo]

It is definitely anti-semitic and racist according to what we believe, but is what we believe as modern readers relevant?
I think what we believe today is what is relevant to this issue since we are the ones reading or watching the play and we are the ones who can continue antisemitism or not. Calling the play antisemitic is just one way of saying that such behavior is not acceptable today no matter how famous the writer of this play is.

I also don't think antisemitism is dead or something that ended in the last century. I hear it in the community I live in where a teenager can tease a Jewish teenage of being a "baby Jesus killer". The Jews did not kill Jesus. The Romans did. Until that reality sinks in the issue of antisemitism is with us still.

[kiki1982]

Of course it is not dead.

However, what is important is what the writer of a play or an artist wishes to explain to you, what his point is. In this case it is definitely not that 'Jews are nasty Jesus-killers', 'Jews poison wells' and 'Jews are nasty greedy money-grabbers'. If he had wanted to discuss that (which was hardly worth discussing at that point in time anyway, Jews were greedy b*st*rds who ate children and that was a well-established fact), he would have made a tragedy about a Jew and his demise like King Lear. In this case he has a Jew figure in the play a few times and that is it.

What we feel as contemporary readers towards issues like that, I would argue is pretty pointless as we are forgetting what point the author was trying to make rather than looking for it. The most important thing is the former, because that's where the work sprang from. Altough we could agree to differ on that.

In branding it anti-semitic, you highlight that fact and all the uncomfortable details fade into the background, because after all you know it is anti-semitic. You know that Shakespeare was a Jew-hater and therefore, whatever he puts into Shylock's mouth is going to be biased, just like Shylock's words were biased to the public a few centuries ago. You take away the irony. Shylock becomes a tragic character rather than a clown which he was supposed to be.

Maybe the more probing ear amongst the original audience could have discerned that in portaying Shylock as a human comedy character begging for compassion, what the audience was laughing at was its own character: you blame this person for making money from lending money, but who borrows it? You, you greedy moron. And as you are laughing at a man, just like yourself, you are laughing at yourself.

The greed that runs through the play, then, is not limited to Shylcok (the epitomy of greed, after all), but is a thing of man: Antonio has the problem, and Bassanio, and the Morrocan prince and the prince of Arragon. Only the women seem to faintly know what is the real deal. The men, they are just playing in their sand pit.

[LitNetIsGreat]

...So no NOT everyone knows what people did to Jews back then. You're taking the background knowledge of all readers for granted.

So maybe time would be better spent in learning historical details as opposed to applying 21st century morality to a 16th century work? Or even, daringly, to consider the quality of the writing.

What I am aiming for is to question the point of the question, but if that's not relevant to this thread (?) then I'll start another one. I am also not saying that we should return to 1880s aesthetics at all. Instead, I am saying we should push aside all of this modern ethical baggage. Well really, I'm just saying I'm sick of all this modern ethical baggage, what other people think is up to them.

It is true that my comments could have easily have been attached onto one of the many many 'is Conrad a racist?' type threads, or other such 'spot the sexism/feminism/homophobia attitude' threads found everywhere, so my points are in no way limited or much directed to this question - in fact I have little interest in it. Therefore, I will take my rant to a new thread. Also for the purpose of not spoiling this kids homework presentation which is now done for him anyway, especially as I just recently noticed duel thread in another section.

[kiki1982]

it's part of it, not to mention it's unavoidable - completely ignoring Shylock's portrayal would obviously be stepping around the elephant in the room.

Of course. Not mentioning it woud be a bit odd, but focussing on that alone (and you do have to contend that much of it revolves around it) is a bit narrow.


Since the argument is that the main themes of the play centrally rely on the portrayal of Shylock it very much does have to do with discussing the actual play. Nothing you just said rebutted that point. So discussing whether it is anti-Semitic or not does in fact contribute to an overall view in this case; it's talking about an issue that is central to the play. That is why we're discussing it. Also, because that is what the original poster asked.

Other reasons why such discussions are important. Since the readers of The Merchant of Venice aren't just seasoned readers chalk full of historical knowledge, but also freshman and sophomores in college, this may be the first time students are encountering the play, discussing some of the problematic issues with students who might not have a very good grounding in history seems particularly relevant. They might not know common anti-Semitic tropes or the medieval attitudes towards Jews, half of them might not have ever met an actual Jew, if they're reading Marlowe it would also be helpful to place Shylock in context with other literary Jewish figures (as Lok noted in his earlier post). So no NOT everyone knows what people did to Jews back then. You're taking the background knowledge of all readers for granted.

I would agree with Neely, however, that there are works in which such discussions aren't central and discussing the absence of female characters from a feminist perspective might be secondary. My argument is this isn't one of those works. More importantly, even in the case where it is secondary there is room for such discussions in literature.

Ok, maybe you are dealing with some pretty naïve people in reading respect, then still, should you say, 'Ooh, be careful, this play is racist/anti-semitic'? You could mention the fact that Jews were seen in a particularly bad light because people thought everything they thought about them (I am not going to repeat the list), but branding it a label essentially takes away the comedy element of it.
Shylock is not a tragic character, despite his speech there about being human. If you interpret that in any way but ironic and deliver it in a pining kind of way, it becomes a tragedy. The hated person inevitably becomes the victim, particularly to us now in terms of racism and certainly anti-semitism, and the whole play is misconstrued as a result.

I agree it is dificult and uncomfortable to view it that way (if not well-nigh impossible), but branding it anti-semitic is not going to help matters.

So, no, to me at least, it is not essential to brand the play anti-semitic. It is helpful to discuss how Jews were perceived.

If you do admit you may be dealing with people who do not understand, then I doubt that saying anything is racist or anti-semitic will change any of their naïvety. If anything they will possible consider that Shakespeare was a vile racist...


So maybe time would be better spent in learning historical details as opposed to applying 21st century morality to a 16th century work?

Hear, hear.

I doubt that if the OP came up in his presentation with that question he would be allowed to reach a conclusion that says 'no, because it did not exist back then.'

I thought this thread was a double thread because JC slightly highjacked it. I may be wrong though...

[Drkshadow03]

So maybe time would be better spent in learning historical details as opposed to applying 21st century morality to a 16th century work? Or even, daringly, to consider the quality of the writing.

None of which are mutually exclusive. Talking about the 16th century attitudes will inevitably bring about discussion of our own moral views. I haven't heard one person on this thread claim we should condemn the work, but rather this is an integral part of understanding it and appreciating it on its own terms. Not to mention if we are unwilling to discuss ethical issues or apply our own ethical understandings to the past ever, we end up with the extreme moral relativism of Kiki.

When we covered this play in my undergrad class back in the day amazingly the professor spent the 4 classes (2 weeks) and managed to cover the Shylock anti-Semitism issue and his own feelings on it, the scholarly debate around that issue, the historical context, the other plots of the play, the symbolism of various scenes, went in-depth on specific metaphors and helped us view the marvelous quality of Shakespeare's language (i. e. the quality of the writing).

[Charles Darnay]

Of course. Not mentioning it woud be a bit odd, but focussing on that alone (and you do have to contend that much of it revolves around it) is a bit narrow.

I do contend this. I'm starting to wish I posted my initial response on this thread and not the hijacked one...

Shylock appears in 5 scenes out of...one sec.....20 scenes. I initially said 4, but forgot about Act II, scene v. Anyway, a quarter of the play. He is the focus of maybe 1 1/2 scenes he is not in. The central focus, in Il Pecorone and in Merchant of Venice, is Bassanio's quest for Portia. The caskets, the ring trick, these classic elements of a COMEDY - this is the central focus.

We do have to bring Shylock into it, and see how he fits into the story - just as Shakespeare brings Shylock further into the original source (where the Jew is such a minor character he doesn't have a name)....but to make him the pivotal issue of the play is distorting it a bit too much for my liking.

If anyone is interested, here was my initial reaction to the initial question:



It is a difficult question indeed and one without an obvious angle, because it depends on what angle you take.

Keep in mind that when Merchant was first staged in the mid-1590s, Jews had been expelled from England for over 3 centuries. No one in England would have met a Jew, or known what a Jew looked like. This was the same time that the Church portrayed Jews as devils (with actual horns), so believe that a Jew had horns and a tail, and fangs, was not terribly uncommon.

Also bear in mind other notable portrayals of Jews in theatre around the same time: the most famous is Barabbas from Marlowe's Jew of Malta. Now Barabbas was both a villain and a clown who freely admitted to such acts as poisoning wells. There was no way to look at Barabbas sympathetically - he was evil.

Shylock transcends Barabbas as a character, but as I have argued before, he is not sympathetic, really. People have twisted his speech in III.i to make him sound sympathetic, but this is really itself a twisted sense of morals. But what Shakespeare does in Merchant of Venice is give us a Jew (Shylock) seen through the eyes of the Christian heroes.

The scene where Solanio is telling the story of Shylock running around screaming "my daughter, my duckets!" is a perfect example of this: we do not see Shylock doing this, only a report of it. We actually see Shylock doing very little except clinging to his bond. He appears in only 4 scenes - two of which he does nothing that could count him a villain.

Meanwhile, the Christians who are meant to be the paragons of good are themselves not so. Bassanio is a player, and Portia, that great angel, is a hypocrite. Her "quality of mercy" speech is as perverted (morally speaking) as Shylock's "if you prick us speech" - she is no better. She preaches mercy and then luxuriates in her trap that she sets up for Shylock.

So do we see an anti-Jewish portrayal of Shylock - yes, but I believe in a way that illustrates how society works not to contribute to it.

Merchant of Venice is a comedy, or it was. It is now seen as a problem play or dark comedy, but this was not the case. It is not until the 20th century that racial morals enter into it, and the ideal playing of this piece would be as a complete farce where no one is spared - so that the audience may see how base humanity really is.

[LitNetIsGreat]

So maybe time would be better spent in learning historical details as opposed to applying 21st century morality to a 16th century work? Or even, daringly, to consider the quality of the writing.


None of which are mutually exclusive. Talking about the 16th century attitudes will inevitably bring about discussion of our own moral views.

That's fine. But when that 21st morality clouds or directs judgment, which it does, then I have a problem.


I haven't heard one person on this thread claim we should condemn the work, but rather this is an integral part of understanding it and appreciating it on its own terms.

You know for a fact that my thoughts were not directed at any particular poster or comment, but to the wider question. Of which I will direct elsewhere.

[kiki1982]

None of which are mutually exclusive. Talking about the 16th century attitudes will inevitably bring about discussion of our own moral views. I haven't heard one person on this thread claim we should condemn the work, but rather this is an integral part of understanding it and appreciating it on its own terms. Not to mention if we are unwilling to discuss ethical issues or apply our own ethical understandings to the past ever, we end up with the extreme moral relativism of Kiki.

When we covered this play in my undergrad class back in the day amazingly the professor spent the 4 classes (2 weeks) and managed to cover the Shylock anti-Semitism issue and his own feelings on it, the scholarly debate around that issue, the historical context, the other plots of the play, the symbolism of various scenes, went in-depth on specific metaphors and helped us view the marvelous quality of Shakespeare's language (i. e. the quality of the writing).

You might have been lucky to have had those four weeks, and good on your professor, but most people stop at the point where they realise Shakespeare is racist. In view of Charles Darnay's reply on the highjacked thread and now here (and below), I would say, that indeed, Shylock is a minor character and should have little to do with the debate. There is a lot more in that play than Shylock and that has nothing to do with extreme moral relativism. Has more to do with the fact that it is pretty pointless to brand a work of art racist or anyting really. Even 'nice' would be pointless, taking Oscar Wilde's view.


I do contend this. I'm starting to wish I posted my initial response on this thread and not the hijacked one...

Shylock appears in 5 scenes out of...one sec.....20 scenes. I initially said 4, but forgot about Act II, scene v. Anyway, a quarter of the play. He is the focus of maybe 1 1/2 scenes he is not in. The central focus, in Il Pecorone and in Merchant of Venice, is Bassanio's quest for Portia. The caskets, the ring trick, these classic elements of a COMEDY - this is the central focus.

We do have to bring Shylock into it, and see how he fits into the story - just as Shakespeare brings Shylock further into the original source (where the Jew is such a minor character he doesn't have a name)....but to make him the pivotal issue of the play is distorting it a bit too much for my liking.

If anyone is interested, here was my initial reaction to the initial question:

Indeed, I found that a very interested take on it.

[Drkshadow03]

I do contend this. I'm starting to wish I posted my initial response on this thread and not the hijacked one...

Shylock appears in 5 scenes out of...one sec.....20 scenes. I initially said 4, but forgot about Act II, scene v. Anyway, a quarter of the play. He is the focus of maybe 1 1/2 scenes he is not in. The central focus, in Il Pecorone and in Merchant of Venice, is Bassanio's quest for Portia. The caskets, the ring trick, these classic elements of a COMEDY - this is the central focus.

We do have to bring Shylock into it, and see how he fits into the story - just as Shakespeare brings Shylock further into the original source (where the Jew is such a minor character he doesn't have a name)....but to make him the pivotal issue of the play is distorting it a bit too much for my liking.

If anyone is interested, here was my initial reaction to the initial question:

Now THAT is a good rebuttal! :yesnod:

[Charles Darnay]

If anyone is interested, here is the story for Il Pecorone that most of Merchant is based off of: http://merchantofvenice.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/2/6/1426390/il_pecorone.pdf


There is a certain danger in looking at Shakespeare's sources - the danger of ignoring how distinct Shakespeare is from his his sources. But at the same time it is a great way to ground Shakespeare's works - which so often transcend their historic context - in history.

There is also an interesting essay by Mary Janell Metzger entitled "'Now by my hood, a Gentile and no Jew': Jessica, The Merchant of Venice, and the Discourse of Early Modern English Identity."

Unfortunately it is not free online, but if you are attending a university that has subscriptions to online databases, you may be able to access it.

[Hawkman]

Now THAT is a good rebuttal! :yesnod:

I would dispute this. To count 25% of the play as insignificant is not only erroneous but just counting the number of appearances of a particular character as an indicator of their relative importance in the play is incredibly simplistic. It's not about the number of times they appear on stage, it's about the quality of the part. Shylock's relationship and interraction with Antonio constitutes the drama in the piece. It's what drives the plot forward. It's certainly more interesting than the fluff of the love story. The play is called The Merchant of Venice, with Antonio as the eponymous merchant. However, after his initial confrontation with Shylock his role is entirely passive. He just sits brooding over his losses, resigns himself to Shylock's vengeance and has to be bailed out by Portia.

What are the most memorable moments in the Play? Certainly the most quoted are Shylock's Eyes speech, And Portia's Quality of Mercy speech.

Actually, having read the play through yesterday I was struck by the eveness in the distribution of appearances with regard to the principle characters, to the extent, in fact, that I was hard pressed to identify a "hero" unless it is Portia, who delivers Antonio.

However, these points are secondary when taken in the context of the OP's question regarding the applicability of describing the play as anti-Semitic. In truth, labelling a play or it's Author anti-Semitic, just because the work contains anti-Semitic characters, is also simplistic. By that argument Schindler's List and Steven Spielberg would be anti-Semitic because the film has Nazis in it.

Live and be well - H

[Charles Darnay]

I would dispute this. To count 25% of the play as insignificant is not only erroneous but just counting the number of appearances of a particular character as an indicator of their relative importance in the play is incredibly siimplistic. It's not about the number of times they appear on stage, it's about the quality of the part. Shylock's relationship and interraction with Antonio constitutes the drama in the piece. It's what drives the plot forward. It's certainly more interesting than the fluff of the love story.

I agree with your last point, but only when we take it from a modern perspective. The love story is the driving point of the play, the trial of Antonio is the consequence of the love story, and the deliverance by Portia is the resolution. Yes, Antonio does get the title, and Shylock often gets the subtitle of the play: "The Merchant of Venice, or The Jew of Venice." And Antonio gets the opening - he starts of in a state of sadness and we have no idea why. But this is quickly taken over by Bassanio's problem: a problem whic consumes the play until it is resolved in III.ii. Bassanio and Portia (and to a lesser extent the other two pairs of lovers) get the last scene, the happy reconciliation. Shylock is the obstacle to the comedy, not the villain of his own story. Counting the number of scenes he appears in/is the focus of may be simplistic, but it demonstrates where the focus of the story lies, and in that I do not think it is erroneous. The reason I brought the figure up in relation to the original question is to demonstrate that Shylock would not have sparked the same interest in 1595 that he does now, or has over the past century. The "fluff" as you call it is what people were expecting when they came to see Shakespeare's newest comedy.

I also do accept the fact that my interpretations are just interpretations, and I am not refuting because I believe you are wrong, but rather I am willing to support my interpretations.

[Charles Darnay]

It's not about the number of times they appear on stage, it's about the quality of the part.


I disagree with this point. There are cases - in an out of Shakespeare - where a secondary or minor character is far more interesting, or better developed than the central character - but this does not necessarily mean that he/she is the focus. You see this a lot in Dickens. Or in Pride and Prejudice: there are better characters than Elizabeth and Darcy.

[Hawkman]

Then I guess we'll have to amicably agree to disagree :D For me the most memorable characters in the play have always been Shylock, Portia and Antonio - and in that order. I don't dispute the play is a Shakespearian comedy and contains those devices so commonly employed, like cross-dressing and ladies playing tricks on their lovers - all staples of his repertoir - but notwithstanding, I maintain my position as stated in my original post in this thread, vis-a-vis Shakespeare's possible motivations in drafting the character of Shylock, given his own personal history and the contemporary climate of suspicion and hate regarding "otherness" - whether Catholic or Jewish.

Live and be well - H

[sadhana]

Shakespeare was a writer , a humanist. He did not mean to be prejudiced against Jews. He was just potraying the cultural ethos to evoke a sense of sympathy for those who are socially unacceptable because of racial differences. His plight as a father and as a person wronged are equally balanced by his passion for revenge.

[JuniperWoolf]

Of course. Not mentioning it woud be a bit odd, but focussing on that alone (and you do have to contend that much of it revolves around it) is a bit narrow.

Yeah, that's true actually. It's okay to talk about how attitudes towards other cultures and women would by modern standards be considered narrow minded occasionally in class (if only to get a better feel for the work's zeitgeist), but most profs that I've had do spend way too much time on it. Using the example of Heart of Darkness from earlier, we spent three whole classes on the question of whether Conrad was racist and we read two essays on the question which, when put together, were longer than Heart of Darkness, then we had an assignment in which we gave our own opinion. For me, the much more interesting aspect of the novella was considering it from the viewpoint that it's a journey into the human mind, but we only spent half of one class discussing that. Repeating the PC theme over and over and over seems a lot like brainwashing. That is starting to have the opposite to the intended effect, people don't like being manipulated.

[prendrelemick]

Apology for coming late to the arguement.

A comedy it may be, but a large part of the play is about giving The Jew a good kicking, and he deserves it, not because he is a Jew, but because Shylock is a man with an evil agenda.

That all sounds fine and nicely wrapped up, but the trouble is, in Shylock the man and The Jew are indivisible. Notice at the end of the trial when his Jewishnes is torn from him there is not much man left either. Shakespeare has written him in that way, and goes further, to say he is acting the way he does because he is a Jew. So the play is anti-semitic.

However I don't count Shakespeare as anti-Semitic at all. Shakespeare did not create Shylock the Jew, the society he lived and worked in did that. Shakespeare took the standard Jew caricature and wrote him a part, and I have to say handled him very sympathetically compared to previous and contemporary authors.

[Hawkman]

That all sounds fine and nicely wrapped up, but the trouble is, in Shylock the man and The Jew are indivisible. Notice at the end of the trial when his Jewishnes is torn from him there is not much man left either. Shakespeare has written him in that way, and goes further, to say he is acting the way he does because he is a Jew. So the play is anti-semitic.



That the play reflects anti-Semitic attitudes towards Jews by the Christians in it is not disputed, but this does not automatically make the play or it's author anti-Semitic. You say Shylock the man and Shylock the Jew are "indivisable" and that when Stripped of his Jewishness there is not much man left in Shylock.

Well to be honest, there's not much man left in Antonio when he's stripped of his wealth. Believing himself to be bankrupt he just wants to pay his debt and be done. He'd rather die than be poor.

Jewishness, according to the play, would seem to be seen as something as easily set aside as an item of clothing. Shylock himself says, "...you spit upon my Jewish gabardine..." and Jessica happily foresweares her heritage just so she can have Lorenzo.

In my original post I cited the instance of Rodrigo Lopez, an emigre conversos, who, though ostensibly Catholic in Portugal, was still regarded as a Jew, and when in England, was ostensibly Protestant but executed for being part of a Catholic plot against the queen and for being a Jew!

However, the Jewish gaberdine is also just an external covering for the man beneath. The themes of the play are clearly geared to not judging by appearances, as I previously indicated by citing Portia's testing of her suitors.

But what does stripping Shylock of his Judaism actually mean for Shylock? As a Jew he is already an outsider in a Christian world. But if he is no longer a Jew he will be shunned by the Jewish community and he'll never be accepted by the Christians, at least, not by any that have known him as a Jew.

Shylock is a wronged and vengeful man, and he'll still be a wronged and vengeful man, whether he's a Christian or a Jew.

That the play reflects contemporary anti-Jewish attitudes does not necessarily mean that it condones them.

[Drkshadow03]

That the play reflects anti-Semitic attitudes towards Jews by the Christians in it is not disputed, but this does not automatically make the play or it's author anti-Semitic. You say Shylock the man and Shylock the Jew are "indivisable" and that when Stripped of his Jewishness there is not much man left in Shylock.

[ . . .]

That the play reflects contemporary anti-Jewish attitudes does not necessarily mean that it condones them.

No, but what is under dispute is whether the play and author does in fact condone those attitudes or whether it is critical of them. I think your idea about Catholics and religious intolerance is interesting, but it is highly speculative. Ultimately, I suspect there is no definitive or correct answer to those questions, hence why there is so much criticism written about the Shylock issue.

[YesNo]

If Shakespeare was Catholic and Catholics were being persecuted by the Protestants at the time could it be that Shakespeare was using this play to try to convince the Protestants to focus their anger on the Jews and leave the Catholics alone?

I don't know much about the history of this time except what I've read in this thread so I might be completely missing the point here, but I'm now curious about this idea and wonder if someone can either knock it down or confirm it.

[kiki1982]

Firstly, what is condone? It means finding something that is reprehensible good. Was anti-semitism in those days bad? No. It was normal.

Secondly, I do not believe Shakespeare was at all anti-semitic like the stone-throwing and murdering Jew-hater of the day. Of course, we cannot really judge, because we do not have his express personal views as contained in letters or diaries or anything of the kind. The only thing we have is a play (and maybe a few others), and one he based on a source at that, which already treated the Jew in a somewhat bad, but realistic contemporary light.

If I would have to take a guess, and that is what it is, I would say, as Charles Darnay, that Shylock is only minor character who is a plot device and a clown who is going to produce a 'boo, hiss' moment at the end. Although in that irony of 'hath not a Jew eyes' the more discerning amongst the audience could well have felt something more than 'wahahaha' and particularly the parterre shouting 'boo' and 'you stupid Jew' could maybe have produced a more biting critique for those who were a bit more free-thinking. Particularly because no-one in England (apart from those who went abroad) could have actually seen a Jew. For a puritanical protestant who knows Matthew 5 and the speck of sawdust...

[Drkshadow03]

Firstly, what is condone? It means finding something that is reprehensible good. Was anti-semitism in those days bad? No. It was normal.


Yes, but you can't seem to decide whether the "normal" anti-Semitic views of Jews from the 16th century are better than our current morality or if Hitler was an evil man. Simply because something was normal for the time doesn't make it morally good. So it's kind of hard to take you seriously as an interlocutor.

Anyone who has ever bothered to study the subject or even possesses a modicum of common sense understands anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, sexism extends far beyond causing mere physical injury and includes things like attitudes, verbal abuse, and non-physical components.

[kiki1982]

If Shakespeare was Catholic and Catholics were being persecuted by the Protestants at the time could it be that Shakespeare was using this play to try to convince the Protestants to focus their anger on the Jews and leave the Catholics alone?

I don't know much about the history of this time except what I've read in this thread so I might be completely missing the point here, but I'm now curious about this idea and wonder if someone can either knock it down or confirm it.

Jews had been banned from England entirely since about 1290. They had been persecuted for a while before that.

The Merchant of Venice was written between 1595 and 1598 and Jews were officially allowed to resettle (because money-lenders were needed again :rolleyes:) in 1655, although there had been a few Jewish merchants settling in London and forming a secret congregation before that. Still, not for hundreds of years anyway. It would still be some forty years after Shakespeare's own death before Jews could walk along the street, so to say.

So no hate could be directed at any Jews, because there were none to his knowledge.

Whether he was a Catholic or not, is a matter of conjecture, but seeing as there is as much argument to find fore and against, you could hardly pin an argument on it.


Yes, but you can't seem to decide whether the "normal" anti-Semitic views of Jews from the 16th century are better than our current morality or if Hitler was an evil man. So it's kind of hard to take you seriously as an interlocutor.

Anyone who has ever bothered to study the subject or even possesses a modicum of common sense understands anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, sexism extends far beyond causing mere physical injury and includes things like attitudes, verbal abuse, and non-physical components.

Do not start that again because anti-semitism in the 20ieth century is totally different from anti-semitism in the rest of history. The fact that I cannot call anyone evil has nothing to do with anti-semitism not being wrong (to us now).

Of course it is about attitudes, but the attitude of a writer of a work of art is of little consequence to us now when it comes to the quality of the art. As Neely said, it is hardly the issue, even the subject of this play.

If you make your current morality the basis of your judgement on a work of art, then you might as well stop reading altogether because most of it will disgust you, shock you or plainly repulse you. Austen is disgusting because women have no rights. We should condemn it as completely outdated and backward because of its class system. Indeed, it is anti-social mobility and it should not be read without warning on the front. Shakespeare is backward and outdated because his plays were anti-semitic, some of them anti-Catholic. Is that relevant at all?

[Hawkman]

No, but what is under dispute is whether the play and author does in fact condone those attitudes or whether it is critical of them. I think your idea about Catholics and religious intolerance is interesting, but it is highly speculative. Ultimately, I suspect there is no definitive or correct answer to those questions, hence why there is so much criticism written about the Shylock issue.

Granted: it is the issue of whether the play condones or condemns prejudice which is under discussion.

Contemporary 16th Century anti-Semitism is not disputed, nor that the play incorporates it into it's very fabric. Certainly Shakespeare's Shylock is ostensibly a pantomime villain whose fate panders to the preconceptions and expectations of his audience, but he is also so much more. Were Shylock a mere clown, or a device to give the audience someone to hiss at, there would be no necessity to humanise him and explain his motives as Shakespeare does. It is the Bard's skill, and lasting legacy, marking him out amongst his contemporaries, that he is able to project far beyond the surface of stock characters and make them so human.

Yes, Shakespeare gives the audience what they want, but at the same time he questions their preconceptions. Unequivocally he shows Shylock the man and allows the audience a moment to consider: how whould I behave towards someone who spits on me, reviles me, treats me like a dog? Would their reaction be any different from Shylock's?

"Thou call'dst me dog before thou hadst a cause: but since I am a dog, beware my fangs:"

Would any man mildly accept such treatment and not seek redress if it were in his power to achieve it?

Shylock does not seek to harm all Christians. He seeks revenge against Antonio for the way Antonio has treated him. This is personal emnity and Antonio has brought it down upon his own head because he hated Shylock for being a Jew.

All this is clearly stated within the text. Is it not highlighting how foolish and dangerous prejudice is?

As to your second point, at this far removed from the time it is inevitable that my suggestions regarding Shakespeare's religious allegance be deemed speculative. I don't deny it, but it is informed and plausible speculation, given such evidence as has survived.

Live and be well - H

[Drkshadow03]

As someone who seems to have no real moral standard, I was just explaining to you why it's hard to take any of your points seriously.

The attitudes towards Shylock matter in the case of The Merchant of Venice because it plays a seminal role in some of the themes of the play. Hawkman already effectively challenged the idea of merely counting how often Shylock appears in scenes as a good indication in determining his importance to the play, so nothing more needs to be said on that point.

I understand where Neely is coming from. Sometimes identifying "isms" when it is secondary to the work can be annoying and overboard. I'm not unsympathetic to the view. I felt the same way in Grad school that there is an over-obsession with identity politics at the expense of other aspects of the work or in missing what the work has to say entirely. Nevertheless, there are works where such discussions make a whole lot of sense (like this one, for example). The study of literature consists in more than just sitting in a class and saying, "Gee golly isn't this a beautiful and good play."

[YesNo]

Jews had been banned from England entirely since about 1290. They had been persecuted for a while before that.

The Merchant of Venice was written between 1595 and 1598 and Jews were officially allowed to resettle (because money-lenders were needed again :rolleyes:) in 1655, although there had been a few Jewish merchants settling in London and forming a secret congregation before that. Still, not for hundreds of years anyway. It would still be some forty years after Shakespeare's own death before Jews could walk along the street, so to say.

So no hate could be directed at any Jews, because there were none to his knowledge.

Whether he was a Catholic or not, is a matter of conjecture, but seeing as there is as much argument to find fore and against, you could hardly pin an argument on it.
I guess that knocks down the argument. If there weren't any Jews in England during Shakespeare's time to deflect the Protestant antagonism toward Catholicism onto, that couldn't be his motive.

[kiki1982]

As someone who seems to have no real moral standard, I was just explaining to you why it's hard to take any of your points seriously.

The attitudes towards Shylock matter in the case of The Merchant of Venice because it plays a seminal role in some of the themes of the play. Hawkman already effectively challenged the idea of merely counting how often Shylock appears in scenes as a good indication in determining his importance to the play, so nothing more needs to be said on that point.

I understand where Neely is coming from. Sometimes identifying "isms" when it is secondary to the work can be annoying and overboard. I'm not unsympathetic to the view. I felt the same way in Grad school that there is an over-obsession with identity politics at the expense of other aspects of the work or in missing what the work has to say entirely. Nevertheless, there are works where such discussions make a whole lot of sense (like this one, for example). The study of literature consists in more than just sitting in a class and saying, "Gee golly isn't this a beautiful and good play."

Don't accuse me of that. I do have a moral standard, I am only not so foolish as to apply it to things in history.

If you do accept Hawkman's arguments, then I will side with him, because I do believe that Shakespeare intentionally applied some humanity to Shylock which most of the audience would laugh at, but which could make the more discerning think. Also in a time where Catholics were persecuted, it could be asked what the purpose of that was. On the other side, he could be called a plot device to expose the other characters and the audience just like Mr Churchill in Emma could be considered as one. Being a plot device does not mean the character is underdeveloped.

Of course the study of literature consists of more than 'wow, this is beautiful and good.' And it consists of more than 'gee, this writer was properly racist, wasn't he.' And that is what I, Neely and Hawkman are addressing here. I would contend it is hard to find a work which is not biased at all against a particular layer of people in society in literature as history has been like that and the world still is. Such research can serve an overall understanding of history and understanding of the writer to some extent (Oscar Wilde would not agree), but it should not rule literary criticism.

As the class system and its limitations is a core element of Austen, we might as well abandone her as we do not approve of it. And so we might abandone The Merchant of Venice because it is anti-semitic. What if the anti-semitism in it is mythical (no-one in the audience would have seen a Jew at all in their lives) and could be read more as an allegory on evil and the speck of sawdust? Is it then still anti-semitic?

The question in this case would be whether through being anti-semitic and reflecting contemporary bias towards Jews in the play, Shakespeare ahs the express aim to villainise Jews or rather the opposite. Do you know it? Do I know it? It ahs been discussed a lot. And what if you and I are both wrong? Would it be fair to stamp something anti-semitic based on conjecture?

[OrphanPip]

I don't think it would actually be better if it was mythologizing Jews as a villain figure, that can't exactly be separated from anti-semitism in general. When Loka mentioned the history of the play's performance in Asia I looked it up, and this play was the most popular Shakespeare performed in Japan from the 19th century to the 1970s, it was performed around 56 times, with multiple adaptations including Kabuki versions. The second place play was Hamlet with 6 performances. And I think it is telling that Shylock was apparently almost always played as the clownish villain, the authors I read said the Japanese playwrights immediately connected him with their version of the miser stock type. However, over time Shylock seems to have played a major part in imparting a mythologized view of Jews as miserly villains in Japanese society at large. In the 1960s a production in Tokyo attempted to emphasize the humanity of Shylock, but it was panned by critics and audiences, they couldn't even accept Shylock as anything other than the miserly stereotype.

Anyway, this is the same argument that attempts to absolve Conrad of racism by saying he was talking about Europeans all along, so the African characters somehow don't reflect anything about perspectives of Africans at the time. This argument is silly, even if Shakespeare was using the comedy Jew as a stock figure to talk about the oppressions of Catholics (I think it unlikely, because this is not congruent with Catholic emancipation rhetoric and strikes me as anachronistic), you can't just ignore the question of Judaism in the text by trying to bypass it entirely.

[Drkshadow03]

Don't accuse me of that. I do have a moral standard, I am only not so foolish as to apply it to things in history.

Your own words and views did a pretty good job explaining why you have no real moral standards and why it's hard to take you seriously concerning this topic.


If you do accept Hawkman's arguments, then I will side with him, because I do believe that Shakespeare intentionally applied some humanity to Shylock which most of the audience would laugh at, but which could make the more discerning think. Also in a time where Catholics were persecuted, it could be asked what the purpose of that was. On the other side, he could be called a plot device to expose the other characters and the audience just like Mr Churchill in Emma could be considered as one. Being a plot device does not mean the character is underdeveloped.

Accepting some of Hawkman's arguments does not require me to accept all of them. I also perfectly accept there are ways one can read the play as supporting Shylock. An educated person is capable of holding multiple interpretations simultaneously. Like I said, I think a good case can be made for both sides of this argument. It's precisely why there is such strong debate around this issue in the first place.

My personal position is that the play is anti-Semitic and the depiction of Shylock is anti-Semitic, but Shakespeare is so talented that he can't help but write a deep character that he manages to humanize in spite of the otherwise anti-Semitic depiction. Nevertheless, Shakespeare's talent with language and character creates an ambiguity in the language and depiction that allows for other later audiences with very different pre-conceptions to read Shylock's depiction very differently.


Of course the study of literature consists of more than 'wow, this is beautiful and good.' And it consists of more than 'gee, this writer was properly racist, wasn't he.' And that is what I, Neely and Hawkman are addressing here.

Actually this better characterizes what I said. Neely's and your position seems to be that it shouldn't really be included at all; my position is that it should be discussed, but it shouldn't be the entire conversation and the only thing talked about as there are many other important aspects of a literary work.



As the class system and its limitations is a core element of Austen, we might as well abandone her as we do not approve of it. And so we might abandone The Merchant of Venice because it is anti-semitic.

Ah, the slippery slope fallacy you and Neely seem so fond of. If someone points out problematic issues in a work, naturally what they really want is to ban the work altogether. Has anyone here demanded that others stop reading this work? Stop attacking a point that nobody here has actually made.


The question in this case would be whether through being anti-semitic and reflecting contemporary bias towards Jews in the play, Shakespeare ahs the express aim to villainise Jews or rather the opposite. Do you know it? Do I know it? It ahs been discussed a lot. And what if you and I are both wrong? Would it be fair to stamp something anti-semitic based on conjecture?

No, but we are stamping it based on actually reading the play and what it says, not on Shakespeare the person. The whole intentional fallacy thing, you might want to look it up.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I will not be drawn into the anti-Semitic debate, but I would like to once again say that my previous comment regarding Wilde and aesthetics has been misrepresented on more than one occasion which I find annoying.

My original comment here:

At the height of the brief fashion of aestheticism Wilde would argue aesthetics above intellectualism declaring that all pictures that make you say 'how interesting' as opposed to 'how beautiful' are bad pictures. We have gone beyond such narrow perspectives today of course, today art must make us think about who this 'offends', which minority figure is 'under-represented' and debate the whole (non) issue constantly. Such progress.

Was not a signal that I think we should all return to the brief aesthetic fashion of the 1880s, but rather a comment upon the PC brigade school of criticism. I also make the point again here, found in the other thread in General Literature:


I am not, for one second, suggesting that we return to the late Victorian aesthetic movement and I’m all for opening up a text and discussing all manner of things, it’s just that I think I have had just about enough of the ‘minority spotting school of criticism’ to last a lifetime, besides it has become such a distraction. To take a hobby horse of mine as an example, I can’t think of how much merit and wisdom has been missed in the works of Wilde to the endless pursuit and criticism of Victorian attitudes of sexuality – what a waste I think. This is the danger of leaving the text aside in pursuit of such side issues. http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68547

I also say it again here:


What I am aiming for is to question the point of the question, but if that's not relevant to this thread (?) then I'll start another one. I am also not saying that we should return to 1880s aesthetics at all. Instead, I am saying we should push aside all of this modern ethical baggage. Well really, I'm just saying I'm sick of all this modern ethical baggage, what other people think is up to them.

So please stop misrepresenting what I am saying. I am wondering if people are more interested in ‘winning’ arguments by whatever means i.e. total misrepresentation, as opposed to discussing literature. We are not politicians.

And actually Wilde’s flirtation with aestheticism is much more complicated and interesting than the fashion anyway. People would realise this if the minority spotting school would pay any attention to it at all. Maybe an exploration of Wilde’s aesthetic would be a valuable education? However there is little time for such fascinating material on university courses because we must focus upon bashing the Victorians and ‘correcting’ the past to make us feel morality superior and absolved of any wrong doing.


Drkshadow Ah, the slippery slope fallacy you and Neely seem so fond of. If someone points out problematic issues in a work, naturally what they really want is to ban the work altogether. Has anyone here demanded that others stop reading this work? Stop attacking a point that nobody here has actually made.

In terms of book banning, here is a recent thread upon the highly offensive works of Dante that you might be interested in reading:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67938&highlight=banning

This can be coupled with endless other threads or general articles which are seemingly on the increase regarding the banning of literature on politically correct grounds. Yes there is a sharp difference between this PC extremism and in generally discussing it thematically within a work, as maybe here, but it is nevertheless a little close for comfort. Again, there is a difference between this PC extremism and such discussions, as maybe found here, but it is a little close for comfort.

The real joke is that often books thumbed for PC rejection could often be argued to be refuting whatever 'ism' is in question. However, the lowest rule of little Johny getting mixed up by the use of, say for example, the 'n word,' must of course take precedence over both common sense and literary merit.


Drkshadow Actually this better characterizes what I said. Neely's and your position seems to be that it shouldn't really be included at all; my position is that it should be discussed, but it shouldn't be the entire conversation and the only thing talked about as there are many other important aspects of a literary work.

Which is more or less what I am saying. The problem arises when it does become the central focus. When the only point in reading Conrad is to bring up racism, or in reading Austen to feel pity for women or in reading Wilde tut tut the late Victorians. The problem is it does get in the way. This is my point.

I might find it interesting to look back over my past essays and to see just how much time was given over to such pursuits. Certainly it is important to spend some time on that, and I am glad that I did, but I am sure that far too much had been taken up with it. I know that for a personal angle I am interested in Wilde's aesthetic stance, which I did my dissertation on and I also think it centrally important in understanding Wilde, but I know that aside from that personal writing 0% was given to it in class. Why? I think it is central to reading Wilde and yet, no, no. :nono: This is the real tragedy.

[kiki1982]

they couldn't even accept Shylock as anything other than the miserly stereotype.

Anyway, this is the same argument that attempts to absolve Conrad of racism by saying he was talking about Europeans all along, so the African characters somehow don't reflect anything about perspectives of Africans at the time. This argument is silly, even if Shakespeare was using the comedy Jew as a stock figure to talk about the oppressions of Catholics (I think it unlikely, because this is not congruent with Catholic emancipation rhetoric and strikes me as anachronistic), you can't just ignore the question of Judaism in the text by trying to bypass it entirely.

It is not because a play is used for political purposes as it lends itself to it that it should forever be like that. Shakespeare's piece about King John was played in the 19th century with an added scene about the signing of the Magna Carta. This was not at all what Shakespeare wanted to depict, but it fitted in the Victorian agenda. King John became a hero.

The Japanese could not accept Shylock as anything else and nor can we see him as anything else than a victim as it seems.

I never said we had to bypass that issue, but it seems there is nothing else. It has been beaten to death that issue. That is the problem I have with that question. It is the same as the feminist idea in a certain stock of novels. It has been beaten to death.

At any rate, everyone knows people were anti-semitic back then, do we really need to assess that once again? We could also declare it, hand some context and move on. The discussion will not become more interesting and nothing more will be learned from it.


Your own words and views did a pretty good job explaining why you have no real moral standards and why it's hard to take you seriously concerning this topic.

Look, does this really need to end this way. I said it was anti-semitic, and I have said I also consider anti-semitism in my day and age wrong. Only I cannot and will not say that this particular author was wrong because it brings nothing new and it will not improve the work.


Accepting some of Hawkman's arguments does not require me to accept all of them. I also perfectly accept there are ways one can read the play as supporting Shylock. An educated person is capable of holding multiple interpretations simultaneously. Like I said, I think a good case can be made for both sides of this argument. It's precisely why there is such strong debate around this issue in the first place.

Well then, we agree on two levels:

1 the play relfects anti-semitic views
2 there are several ways in which to interpret Shylock

Only as this thing is a comedy, I doubt whether Shylock was supposed to be victim at all.


My personal position is that the play is anti-Semitic and the depiction of Shylock is anti-Semitic, but Shakespeare is so talented that he can't help but write a deep character that he manages to humanize in spite of the otherwise anti-Semitic depiction. Nevertheless, Shakespeare's talent with language and character creates an ambiguity in the language and depiction that allows for other later audiences with very different pre-conceptions to read Shylock's depiction very differently.[/QUOTE

Once again, we agree on the first point. I am not sure why the second point is so important. Granted it would be less PC and more uncomfortable to depict Shylock as he is supposed to be and it would probably induce more thinking.

[QUOTE=Drkshadow03;1132525]Actually this better characterizes what I said. Neely's and your position seems to be that it shouldn't really be included at all; my position is that it should be discussed, but it shouldn't be the entire conversation and the only thing talked about as there are many other important aspects of a literary work.

Oh, it should be included. But as I said in response to Pip, it has been beaten to death. If this is the first a freshman or sophomore learns about this play, is that going to leave a favourable impression of Shakespeare? I doubt it. Then better do one with fewer issues.


Ah, the slippery slope fallacy you and Neely seem so fond of. If someone points out problematic issues in a work, naturally what they really want is to ban the work altogether. Has anyone here demanded that others stop reading this work? Stop attacking a point that nobody here has actually made.

You find me one modern anti-semitic interpretation of Shylock in the west post-holocaust and I will believe you. Then I stand corrected. However, I am quite confident that there would be an outrage if you were to do one in the Globe in London and the sympathetic portrayal of Shylock goes back to 1814 no less.

The only thing I was addressing, and Neely, is the fact that this play seems to have no other topic than anti-semitism. Shylock is only one quarter of the play. He drives the plot, maybe, but so does the greed of the rest. It is after all their greed that drives them to Shylock.
Indeed, the Elizabethan anti-semitic reading (which is the most accurate one) could even be based on medieval plays of Shylock as the devil and Portia as the Virgin Mary and Shylock's conversion as his redemption.

Indeed, no-one demanded that others stop reading the work, they only absolutely refute playing him as a stock villain with a hooked nose and a reed wig... As he was originally depicted, no doubt.

Stating that this is anti-semitic is stating the obvious.

[YesNo]

I keep getting lost in what we are arguing about. Could someone set me straight?

It seems that everyone agrees that the people living during Shakespeare's time were antisemitic, although they didn't have that word in their vocabulary. Also, I think everyone agrees that the Merchant of Venice encouraged that "normal" antisemitism whatever else it may do.

No one is saying that the Merchant of Venice should be banned. No one is saying that the book should not be read as part of a school curricula.

Is the real issue we are debating simply that some people are claiming that the play's portrayal of Shylock is antisemitic and others are saying that such claims should not be made?

[Hawkman]

We are doing a project for our Shakespeare lecture which basically asks, "Does Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock constitute anti-Semitism? Can art transcend contemporary bigotry?"

This is the OP's question, so might I suggest that questioning his right to ask it is not only deeply discourteous but self-aggrandising. It hijacks the thread and distracts from the discussion at hand. If you wish to discuss the validity of literary analysis then start your own thread.

With regard to the OP's query, some of us believe the play to be anti-Semitc in bias and some of us don't, which basically means that we agree with the second premise that art transcends contemporary bigotry. So far the vote is 7 to 4 in favour of the latter position.

[kiki1982]

We are sorry.

Neel expressed some frustration on the fact that there it that issue has cropped up again and someone decided to elaborate. That is all.

We should indeed take it to another thread, then.

Based on historic knowledge, the play is definitely anti-semitic. I think modern interpretation based on text alone can transcend historic bigotry, but I don't think that is right and proper. Circumstancial evidence suggests that Shylock should be protrayed in a villified manner, then let it be so.

I know that is purist in a theatrical sense, but many plays have been used for purposes they were not made for. As we now have the benefit of being inquisitive, I think we should use that knowledge and not disregard it or bend it to our own purpose.

I was one of the minority who votes 'yes' by the way.


I keep getting lost in what we are arguing about. Could someone set me straight?

It seems that everyone agrees that the people living during Shakespeare's time were antisemitic, although they didn't have that word in their vocabulary. Also, I think everyone agrees that the Merchant of Venice encouraged that "normal" antisemitism whatever else it may do.

No one is saying that the Merchant of Venice should be banned. No one is saying that the book should not be read as part of a school curricula.

Is the real issue we are debating simply that some people are claiming that the play's portrayal of Shylock is antisemitic and others are saying that such claims should not be made?

No, but we are brainwashing school kids into the fact that this play is racist. And only that. That was what Neely brought up, and that is what I think. Before you know it, the general concensus is that no-one should subject school children to this 'without context' (as Darkshadow expressed), and then where are you. The next step is that 'it is dangerous' and the next 'it should be banned'. All in moderation. Address the issue and that should be that. Don't have papers written by your pupils about it.

And that's it. Discussion is closed. Zip.

[LitNetIsGreat]

This is the OP's question, so might I suggest that questioning his right to ask it is not only deeply discourteous but self-aggrandising. It hijacks the thread and distracts from the discussion at hand. If you wish to discuss the validity of literary analysis then start your own thread.

I have; it's here:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1132558#post1132558

Personally, I do have the bad habit of going 'off track' which can be seen to be discourteous or even rude. Not perhaps as rude as opening a homework help thread, indeed two threads, offering absolutely no opinion or counter responses to the responses and then possibly milking those responses, without even a thanks. (Or maybe the poster has just been away?)

Though as to the OP, not much has been given to the second point:


Originally Posted by QueCubed View Post
We are doing a project for our Shakespeare lecture which basically asks, "Does Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock constitute anti-Semitism? Can art transcend contemporary bigotry?"


Which is, coincidentally maybe, absolutely covered by my own criticisms.

[YesNo]

No, but we are brainwashing school kids into the fact that this play is racist. And only that. That was what Neely brought up, and that is what I think. Before you know it, the general concensus is that no-one should subject school children to this 'without context' (as Darkshadow expressed), and then where are you. The next step is that 'it is dangerous' and the next 'it should be banned'. All in moderation. Address the issue and that should be that. Don't have papers written by your pupils about it.

And that's it. Discussion is closed. Zip.
I guess you have a point. If the play is labeled antisemitic, which I think it is, some people may feel obligated to remove it from the public school curricula. However, it would be better if it stayed there so students could learn about antisemitism and perhaps deal with it.

If it were removed, perhaps a teenager would much prefer to read Titus Andronicus.

[Delta40]

I'm reading the play now and I can see the point about it being anti-semitic. When it comes to art, it would not occur to me to question such things, given the time when they were written. Considering how the education system has deteriorated so much, I rather doubt Shakespeare even gets a look in at secondary schools these days and if he does, this play would not be on the list probably for all the reasons being discussed. Romeo and Juliet is more well known. As for writing papers on whether the play is anti-semitic, at a university level I don't see why the question shouldn't be explored since it gives a rich insight to historical context and why shouldn't a student take that journey?

[Charles Darnay]

I'm reading the play now and I can see the point about it being anti-semitic. When it comes to art, it would not occur to me to question such things, given the time when they were written. Considering how the education system has deteriorated so much, I rather doubt Shakespeare even gets a look in at secondary schools these days and if he does, this play would not be on the list probably for all the reasons being discussed. Romeo and Juliet is more well known. As for writing papers on whether the play is anti-semitic, at a university level I don't see why the question shouldn't be explored since it gives a rich insight to historical context and why shouldn't a student take that journey?

Shakespeare is still taught in high schools (in Canada at least) and I've known Merchant to be taught as well.

It is a very good idea to engage with the question, just not to do so at the expense of everything else in the play. The problem with many though is that they do not seek the "rich insight to historical context" but rather say:

a) Shylock's speech in III.i shows him to be sympathetic therefore the play is not anti-Semitic

or b) Shylock will not give up Antonio's flesh and therefore the play is anti-Semitic.

Such simple answers - as I suspect the OP was looking for considering he put a poll to the matter - are absolutely useless and do nothing for the study of the play, or for education in general.

[Hawkman]

An element which has, so far, not yet been considered is the subjection of any theatrical presentation to censorship by the Master of the Revels, Edmund Tilney.


Sir Edmund Tilney* or Tylney (1536–1610) was a courtier best known now as*Master of the Revels*to Queen Elizabeth*and*King James. He was responsible for the censorship of drama in England. He was also instrumental in the development of English drama of the Elizabethan period. Tilney made the office of Master of the Revels into an institution. (Wikipedia)

It would have been Tilney's role to ensure that plays conformed to an acceptable standard, complying with contemporary politics. The last thing he would have allowed would be anything likely to cause dissent or riot amongst the populace, which openly defending Jews (or Catholics for that matter) in the face of existing prejudice or law, would almost certainly have provoked.


A commission issued on 24 December 1581 (...) was to prohibit the discussion of any controversial issues in theatre. A play would be permitted only if the manuscript had the signature of the Master. Any offender could be imprisoned by Tilney's orders. He was given complete authority in matters concerning drama. This responsibility had been previously shared by Revels officers. (Wikipedia)

Given this hurdle, Shakespeare might be seen to have been sailing very close to the wind with his depiction of Shylock in any kind of sympathetic light. Really it would be unthinkable for him to have been seen to be "morally superior" to Antonio or not to have been punished for his attempt to claim Antonio's life. He would have to be seen to be subject to "forgiving" Christian "justice".

[YesNo]

My daughter recently finished reading the play for high school so this play is required reading at least in some school districts of Illinois. I asked her what she thought of it and she said she didn't like "the plot line". We aren't Jewish, but we do live in a community with a large Jewish population and some of her friends are Jewish.

I just watched the version with Al Pacino in it to refresh myself of the contents: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379889/

When I listened to the dialog before the duke and noticed how the Jew (why is he so often called just "the Jew"?) was portrayed as demanding the "law" compared with the "mercy" of the Christians, I became convinced this was nothing more than antisemitic propaganda. Shylock's speech in III.i that Charles Darnay mentioned sets him up as someone who can be hurt. Usually bad guys get presented with enough humanity so that the audience can gloat over their eventual downfall. It is after all a "comedy" because the Shylock is completely defeated.

The point Hawkman is making about there being a censor, that Master of Revels, doesn't condone Shakespeare. He could have picked a different topic if he wasn't as antisemitic as his contemporaries. He can't blame the censor for what he wrote.

There is a difference between 21st century ethics and 16th century ethics as some have mentioned in this thread. The main difference, however, is that the overall ethical problem today is for the Christians. This play should put them to shame.

[Charles Darnay]

I just watched the version with Al Pacino in it to refresh myself of the contents: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379889/

When I listened to the dialog before the duke and noticed how the Jew (why is he so often called just "the Jew"?) was portrayed as demanding the "law" compared with the "mercy" of the Christians, I became convinced this was nothing more than antisemitic propaganda. Shylock's speech in III.i that Charles Darnay mentioned sets him up as someone who can be hurt. Usually bad guys get presented with enough humanity so that the audience can gloat over their eventual downfall. It is after all a "comedy" because the Shylock is completely defeated.


Al Pacino's Shylock is very noticeably a sympathetic portrayal, as most post-WWII are. Actually, although I liked that film adaptation, it really did take the PC route, trying not to offend anyone at one - Jew, Christian - all come out as sympathetic characters.



The point Hawkman is making about there being a censor, that Master of Revels, doesn't condone Shakespeare. He could have picked a different topic if he wasn't as antisemitic as his contemporaries. He can't blame the censor for what he wrote.

I think Hawkman was just (accurately) pointing out that because the Master of Revels didn't censor the work, it was not deemed unacceptable in society at the time. Is this because there was a general dislike of Jews that villainizing them for the purpose of comedy was acceptable? Probably. Or, perhaps Shylock is not as villainous as we think. It is hard to tell because history has stripped away our ability to see the clown in what is mean to be a comic-villain.


There is a difference between 21st century ethics and 16th century ethics as some have mentioned in this thread. The main difference, however, is that the overall ethical problem today is for the Christians. This play should put them to shame.

I have seen this before. There was a famous performance of this play put on by the Third Reich during WWII in which - as you can imagine - Shylock was made to be so overly villainous and heinous and well, Nazi propaganda is as what it is. The point is that more recently there have been productions that took this one and turned it on its head, showing that the attitude towards Jew in the 16th century (and leading up) and how Jew were portrayed in art (such as in Merchant) helped lead to Hitler's success, because it was such a culturally accepted thing in the Christian world. Of course, this is just one particular adaptation.

[YesNo]

After a quick search here is a reference to the Nazi use of the play: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/04/theater/theater-shylock-and-nazi-propaganda.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

What struck me in a bad way were the arguments and actions presented during the trial regarding the distinction between the Jewish "law" and Christian "mercy". I remember hearing these things as a youth and seeing them repeated here made me very uncomfortable watching the play. No doubt there is art in the presentation of the scenes and Shakespeare succeeded in keeping an audience interested.

Another thing I don't understand is Shylock's daughter's behavior.

[kiki1982]

I think Hawkman was just (accurately) pointing out that because the Master of Revels didn't censor the work, it was not deemed unacceptable in society at the time. Is this because there was a general dislike of Jews that villainizing them for the purpose of comedy was acceptable? Probably. Or, perhaps Shylock is not as villainous as we think. It is hard to tell because history has stripped away our ability to see the clown in what is mean to be a comic-villain.

he must have been indeed close to the line, but it all depends on how you deliver and interpret the text. Indeed, unfortunately there are no director's remarks left to tel us how he should be dressed, walk and talk, etc. as they were not written back then...


I have seen this before. There was a famous performance of this play put on by the Third Reich during WWII in which - as you can imagine - Shylock was made to be so overly villainous and heinous and well, Nazi propaganda is as what it is. The point is that more recently there have been productions that took this one and turned it on its head, showing that the attitude towards Jew in the 16th century (and leading up) and how Jew were portrayed in art (such as in Merchant) helped lead to Hitler's success, because it was such a culturally accepted thing in the Christian world. Of course, this is just one particular adaptation.

I knew there had to be one. After the total flop of their documentary Der Ewige Jude (the eternal Jew) because people were not interested, they switched to subliminal anti-Jewish and anti-anything entertainment. Mostly one group ganing up on another.

You cannot blame anyone for protraying Jews like this from a modern perspective.

Hawkman, those were very interesting points.

[Hawkman]

What struck me in a bad way were the arguments and actions presented during the trial regarding the distinction between the Jewish "law" and Christian "mercy". I remember hearing these things as a youth and seeing them repeated here made me very uncomfortable watching the play. No doubt there is art in the presentation of the scenes and Shakespeare succeeded in keeping an audience interested.

Another thing I don't understand is Shylock's daughter's behavior.

What makes you think the Law is Jewish? Shylock lives in a Christian State, subject to Christian Law. Well, actually, given the context of an English play written by an English playwright for an English Audience, the law would actually be Secular, although admisnistered by Christians. Shylock is merely claiming his rights, according to the contract, or Bond, which is clearly designed to be the death of Antonio. Why does Shylock want to kill Antonio? For the reasons I have enumerated at some length in previous posts in this thread, and which can be boiled down to 'personal emnity'. The perception of "Jewish" Law, for the 16th Century Christian would be "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," because that's what it says in the Bible, despite the fact that the law of a Christian state would have been derrived from the same source.

As I keep pointing out, Shylock is over the top. He seeks Antonio's Life which is far in excess of an eye for an eye. He's not just a Stock Evil Jew, he's an individual man with his own agenda. No other Jew in the play is so villified as Shylock, especially by Antonio. Were the play to be truly Anti-Jewish in general, all Jews would be depicted as Evil, trecherous and foul. They are not.

What I would say is that the play displays some measure of ignorance as to what being Jewish actually means. This is not surprising, given the fact, as previously outlined by myself and several other posters, that few Englishmen would ever have knowingly interacted with any Jews. As I indicated by my citation of the case of Rodrigo Lopez, Jewishness might have be seen to be something easily cast off for the pragmatism of exisiting within a Christian State. Perhaps there is a parellel here with Catholicsim in a Protestant State, particularly that of Elizabethan England. The issues informing the text from a historical perspective are complex.

As for Jessica, Shylock's daughter, she doesn't seem to like her father very much, but is she any more than a flighty teenage girl who elopes with her lover? Well, there been plenty of those before and since. What isn't made clear is how she got acquainted with Lorenzo in the first place, given the reluctance of both religious groups to mingle or socialise. But the beautiful daughter of a villain who runs off to spite her father is another stock character from the dramatist's box.

That the play's characters conform to popular, contemporary 16th Century sterotypes has never been disputed. What is under discussion is the spin Shakespeare has placed on them and the skill with which he has done it. The play contains Anti-Jewish characters, but it also clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly within the text, calls those Anti-Jewish attitudes into question.


he must have been indeed close to the line, but it all depends on how you deliver and interpret the text. Indeed, unfortunately there are no director's remarks left to tel us how he should be dressed, walk and talk, etc. as they were not written back then...



I knew there had to be one. After the total flop of their documentary Der Ewige Jude (the eternal Jew) because people were not interested, they switched to subliminal anti-Jewish and anti-anything entertainment. Mostly one group ganing up on another.

You cannot blame anyone for protraying Jews like this from a modern perspective.

Hawkman, those were very interesting points.

Thanks for that.

With reference to Fritz Hippler's Der Ewige Jude I'm afraid I'm going to have to point out that as a propoganda film it can't actually be classed as a flop. It wasn't intended to make money. The film was not made until 1939 and released in 1940, by which time Hitler had been in power 7 years and the Third Reich only had five years to run.

Anti-Jewish propoganda had been rammed down Germany's throat by Goebels, almost from the off. That the film probably made little difference to the overall perceptions of Jews in Nazi Germany may well be true. However, its relentless diatribe, accompanying images of rats intercut with sterotypical charicaturistic portraits of hook-nosed, dirty, unshaven Polish Jews living in the appalling conditions of the Warsaw Ghetto, is calculated to revolt an audience. The film is utterly loathsome, both in intent and execution.

Returning to TMoV, The issue of the manner of presentation of the play is entirely valid. It is why I recommended that people read the text. Look at the words Shakespeare wrote. Here they may be seen without intervening nuance, although it is helpful to have a good understanding of the contemporary historical scene and context.

I also clearly stated that it is difficult to interpret the text without being influenced by the baggage of history. It's difficult, but not impossible. I also pointed out that post WW11 there is a tendency to bandy the term "Anti-Semitic" to anything which appears even remotely critical or detremental to Jews. This is unfortunate because it blinds us to in-depth analysis of a text like The Merchant of Venice, which is a significant piece of dramatic literature.

Live long and prosper - H

[Drkshadow03]

What makes you think the Law is Jewish? Shylock lives in a Christian State, subject to Christian Law. Well, actually, given the context of an English play written by an English playwright for an English Audience, the law would actually be Secular, although admisnistered by Christians. Shylock is merely claiming his rights, according to the contract, or Bond, which is clearly designed to be the death of Antonio.

Nah, this misses a crucial point in what one means by the law. YesNo doesn't mean the law is Jewish; obviously the literal law is that of a Christian state. YesNo is speaking about the symbolism inherent in the actions of the characters during that scene. Many Christians perceive Judaism as being obsessed with the law and rules (followers of the Commandments to the letter), while Christianity is about mercy, sacrifice, and forgiveness (Christ's example). Essentially YesNo's comments go back to my earliest post where I mentioned that you can actually read the play, especially this particular scene as a highly symbolic scene illustrating the nature of Christianity (the religion of mercy) versus Judaism (the religion of the law). This is actually how my professor taught us to read the trial scene. Even the famous speech in which he claims he wants revenge on Antonio for treating him poorly itself relies on eye for an eye justice (an Old Testament value) rather than taking the abuse and turning the other cheek (a New Testament value).

[Hawkman]

Well that's a point of view, certainly, but I'm not at all certain that I can agree with it. If in the middle ages Jews were believed to consort with witches and were depicted as demons, I rather think that they would have been considered completely outside the law, whether religious or secular. I do, of course, conceed that this was an attitude from the early medieval period, but certainly this legacy of prejudice and ignorance would have still had echoes in Elizabethan times.

Your tutor's opinion is not one which I've heard before. Can you cite his source for this interpretation of what was believed? I'd be interested to look it up.

PS: This aside, You seem to be raising questions which I have already addressed and countered, repeatedly and at length. There is no way Shylock can be considered as demanding, 'an eye for an eye' because he is seeking the death of Antonio for what amounts to being kicked and spat upon and reviled. An eye for an eye would require nothing more than the humiliation and abuse of Antonio. I have also already pointed out that biblical law was the foundation of Christian law, although Christian religious law and secular law might be seen to have diverged somewhat. The letter of secular law does not necessarily automatically imply "Justice," which is, and always has been, subjective. The court which judges the parties in the play is not a religious court, it is a secular one. The notary who sets up the bond is not a Rabbi or a monk.

Incidentally, There are a considerable number of rules to strict, Christian observance, which although we may be less familiar with them today, would have been very well known to an Elizabethan Christian congregation. eg, what to eat on certain days, the number of times to pray during the day etc. etc. There had been 500 years of monastic tradition in England until the dissolution, but there would still have been some memory of religious communities extant in the country, one of which had actually harboured and protected converted Jews (the Domus Conversorum) and which continued until shortly before Shakespeare's time. ("...1551 and later," according to Wikipedia)

[YesNo]

Nah, this misses a crucial point in what one means by the law. YesNo doesn't mean the law is Jewish; obviously the literal law is that of a Christian state. YesNo is speaking about the symbolism inherent in the actions of the characters during that scene. Many Christians perceive Judaism as being obsessed with the law and rules (followers of the Commandments to the letter), while Christianity is about mercy, sacrifice, and forgiveness (Christ's example). Essentially YesNo's comments go back to my earliest post where I mentioned that you can actually read the play, especially this particular scene as a highly symbolic scene illustrating the nature of Christianity (the religion of mercy) versus Judaism (the religion of the law). This is actually how my professor taught us to read the trial scene. Even the famous speech in which he claims he wants revenge on Antonio for treating him poorly itself relies on eye for an eye justice (an Old Testament value) rather than taking the abuse and turning the other cheek (a New Testament value).
This is exactly what I am referring to when I mention the Law. It reminds me of Paul's epistles, perhaps Romans or Galatians.

What I didn't realize until after reading the article about Nazi propaganda and Shylock is that Antonio is also a Christ-figure. He takes on the debt of his friend and is willing to die to pay off that debt. Shylock represents the Christian gospel view that the Jews killed Jesus and Shylock is willing to re-enact that on Antonio's body. Antonio is portrayed as merciful to Shylock. Shylock is portrayed as without mercy.


What makes you think the Law is Jewish? Shylock lives in a Christian State, subject to Christian Law. Well, actually, given the context of an English play written by an English playwright for an English Audience, the law would actually be Secular, although admisnistered by Christians. Shylock is merely claiming his rights, according to the contract, or Bond, which is clearly designed to be the death of Antonio. Why does Shylock want to kill Antonio? For the reasons I have enumerated at some length in previous posts in this thread, and which can be boiled down to 'personal emnity'. The perception of "Jewish" Law, for the 16th Century Christian would be "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," because that's what it says in the Bible, despite the fact that the law of a Christian state would have been derrived from the same source.

As I keep pointing out, Shylock is over the top. He seeks Antonio's Life which is far in excess of an eye for an eye. He's not just a Stock Evil Jew, he's an individual man with his own agenda. No other Jew in the play is so villified as Shylock, especially by Antonio. Were the play to be truly Anti-Jewish in general, all Jews would be depicted as Evil, trecherous and foul. They are not.

What I would say is that the play displays some measure of ignorance as to what being Jewish actually means. This is not surprising, given the fact, as previously outlined by myself and several other posters, that few Englishmen would ever have knowingly interacted with any Jews. As I indicated by my citation of the case of Rodrigo Lopez, Jewishness might have be seen to be something easily cast off for the pragmatism of exisiting within a Christian State. Perhaps there is a parellel here with Catholicsim in a Protestant State, particularly that of Elizabethan England. The issues informing the text from a historical perspective are complex.

As for Jessica, Shylock's daughter, she doesn't seem to like her father very much, but is she any more than a flighty teenage girl who elopes with her lover? Well, there been plenty of those before and since. What isn't made clear is how she got acquainted with Lorenzo in the first place, given the reluctance of both religious groups to mingle or socialise. But the beautiful daughter of a villain who runs off to spite her father is another stock character from the dramatist's box.

That the play's characters conform to popular, contemporary 16th Century sterotypes has never been disputed. What is under discussion is the spin Shakespeare has placed on them and the skill with which he has done it. The play contains Anti-Jewish characters, but it also clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly within the text, calls those Anti-Jewish attitudes into question.
I agree with you about Jessica. I also don't understand how she became acquainted with Lorenzo, but that's irrelevant I suppose. Although the parallel isn't exact, her behavior and Portia and Nerissa's pretending to have cuckolded their husbands with the missing ring stunt can probably by lumped into the "girls just wanna have fun" category.

Perhaps I am more culturally Christian than I realized, but don't you see the parallel between Antonio and Jesus? Initially, I didn't either, but now it is obvious to me. In fact I don't see how Shakespeare could have missed it which means I don't see how this wasn't deliberate.

[Hawkman]

Perhaps I am more culturally Christian than I realized, but don't you see the parallel between Antonio and Jesus? Initially, I didn't either, but now it is obvious to me. In fact I don't see how Shakespeare could have missed it which means I don't see how this wasn't deliberate.

I guess it depends on what Christian agenda you adhere to.

Quite frankly I find this an exraordinary interpretation and one which is borderline blasphemous! Antonio Certainly doesn't love his enemies, and it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than for him to enter the kingdom of heaven! Antonio isn't crucified or even scourged. He is delivered from an unjust punishment for the crime of arrogant stupidity by the letter of the bond and a quick witted Portia. Antonio would rather die than be poor.

[YesNo]

I guess it depends on what Christian agenda you adhere to.

Quite frankly I find this an exraordinary interpretation and one which is borderline blasphemous! Antonio Certainly doesn't love his enemies, and it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than for him to enter the kingdom of heaven! Antonio isn't crucified or even scourged. He is delivered from an unjust punishment for the crime of arrogant stupidity by the letter of the bond and a quick witted Portia. Antonio would rather die than be poor.
To my understanding there is no specific Christian agenda here nor is this an extraordinary interpretation. In all this, I am not saying that Antonio has all the Christ-like features that a 21st century Christian ethics would require, but I do think he has all the Christ-like features that a 16th or even a 20th century Christian ethics would require, at least enough to make a member of the audience associate him with Jesus.

I'll try to come up with some associations between the play and the KJV that I suspect Shakespeare was familiar with.

Something occurred to me about those rings that Portia and Nerrisa used to trick their husbands into thinking they were unfaithful to them: Didn't Jessica also have a ring that was used to symbolize her unfaithfulness to her father? Maybe the parallel is stronger than I originally thought.

[Hawkman]

The point about the ring is interesting, although it has little relevence to faithfulness. Rather it illustrates his daughter's wanton profilgacy in the company of a Christian. This occurs in Act III Scene 1, where Shylock is alternately apprised of Antonio's supposed misfortune, at which he delights and Jessica's extravigance which he bemoans. Certainly this is intended as a comic scene and it both reads and plays as one.

Jessica took both jewells and money from her father. The ring is not specifically described as having been given to Jessica, but as having been given to Shylock by Leah, (Shylocks's wife perhaps?) "When he was a bachellor", it must be a man's ring and is obviously of great personal sentimental value to him. Jessica stole it and gave it away for a monkey. She also squanders Shylock's gold, presumably for the benefit of her new husband, Lorenzo. Superficially it is funny in the context of the comparitive fortunes of Shylock and Antonio, but Jessica has stolen, and steeling is a sin to Christians as well as Jews. Lorenzo, a Christian, seems more than happy to break a few commandments. Well, he can always go to confession, say a few our fathers and be washed whiter than white, so that's all right then.

The point I'm making is that the Christians are as morally flawed as Shylock, as was pointed out much earlier by another poster.

I rather suspect that 16th Century Christians would have had a far more rigorous interpretation of what constitutes Christ-like qualities than anyone living in the last 100 years. Such symbolism would not have been observed in the secular before the likes of Roland Barthes and the rise of Semiology. The description of Christian Symbolism was the preserve of the Established Church, which rather frowned on the Theatre as being godless frippery.

[Charles Darnay]

I became fixated on the symbol of Leah's ring, and am even writing a story with that as the title (which draws heavily from Merchant).

To me, Leah's ring is the last thing Jessica gave away that she took from her father - is the last piece of her parentage - her Jewish parentage - that she parted with, thus completely renouncing her past. That she gave it away for a money shows just how little she cares about her past.

I love Jessica as a subject - while I don't think she was meant to be a great focus in the play, and is often not, she is an interesting character. The "on such a night as this" scene between Lorenzo and Jessica in Act V remains one of the most confusing things in this play.

[kelby_lake]

The play is anti-semitic, but this is not the same as saying that Shakespeare is a racist or that this anti-semitism makes the play bad. Shylock is the stock Evil Jew character- Shakespeare gives him a humanity but the characterisation is still based on racial stereotypes. Jessica rejects her Jewishness and so becomes a heroine.

[Charles Darnay]

TJessica rejects her Jewishness and so becomes a heroine.

Does she? I'm not trying to be contrary for the sake of being contrary, but there are few points.

She is presented as being inferior to Portia, at least Lorenzo seems to think more of Portia than he does Jessica (cf. III.v).

Although joking, Launcelot highlights the "problem" with Jessica's conversion, which speaks to the wider social issue of Jews converting to Christianity at the time (for safety or profit). Is Jessica meant to be seen in this light? Taking a place that should belong to a "real Christian?"

And then there is the bizarre "on such a night as this speech" which I can't help but think shows some unspoken problem that exists between Jessica and Lorenzo - unlike the "pure Christian couples" which tie up nicely, Lorenzo and Jessica have an undercurrent of tragedy about them....but as I head, I really don't know what to make of that scene.

[Hawkman]

Although joking, Launcelot highlights the "problem" with Jessica's conversion, which speaks to the wider social issue of Jews converting to Christianity at the time (for safety or profit). Is Jessica meant to be seen in this light? Taking a place that should belong to a "real Christian?"

And then there is the bizarre "on such a night as this speech" which I can't help but think shows some unspoken problem that exists between Jessica and Lorenzo - unlike the "pure Christian couples" which tie up nicely, Lorenzo and Jessica have an undercurrent of tragedy about them....but as I head, I really don't know what to make of that scene.

Both these points are well observed. Shakespeare is indicating how conversos would be received within the wider Christian community in a subtle and non-confrontational way. How much worse for Shylock, whom nobody likes... The second also highlights the problems faced by couples from disparate cultural backgrounds. He doesn't say, "it can't work," rather he is saying, "if you want it to work you're going to have to put in some effort."

I like your idea about Leah's Ring. I'd like to read it when you've finished it. However, I'm not sure that Shakespeare intended the ring to have the significance you speculate for it. If the ring had been given to Jessica by Shylock I'd be more inclined to support your premise as fitting within the context of the play.

Live and be well - H

[Charles Darnay]

However, I'm not sure that Shakespeare intended the ring to have the significance you speculate for it. If the ring had been given to Jessica by Shylock I'd be more inclined to support your premise as fitting within the context of the play.


I'm fully willing to admit this, that I am probably stretching these lines a bit to fit my romantic vision, or the purposes of the story I am working on.

However, when Shylock references the ring in relation to Leah (who I can only assume is his wife) - this is the only time he associates a person with a possession as opposed to a possession with a person. Such as: Jessica becomes the ducts she stole. Such as: Antonio becomes the pound of flesh owed. The ring is valuable, but there is a reason why he mentions that it is from Leah, as if there is actually a possession that carries sentimental and not just monetary value. And Jessica must have known that the ring was from her mother, and this should have had sentimental value for her, but it doesn't.

[YesNo]

The point I'm making is that the Christians are as morally flawed as Shylock, as was pointed out much earlier by another poster.

Since Shylock relies on the "law", I would expect him to be morally superior to the Christians.

Here is just one portrayal of Jesus as someone who does not obey the law either. The scorn for the Pharisees in Mark reminds me of the scorn for Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. In both cases, there is anticipation that the Pharisees will try to kill Jesus which matches the fear that Shylock will try to kill Antonio. (Mark 3:4-6 KJV):


And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

[YesNo]

To me, Leah's ring is the last thing Jessica gave away that she took from her father - is the last piece of her parentage - her Jewish parentage - that she parted with, thus completely renouncing her past. That she gave it away for a money shows just how little she cares about her past.

I probably missed much of the parts with Leah's ring, but I did find this (Act 3, Sc 1):


TUBAL: One of them showed me a ring that he had of your daughter for a monkey.
SHYLOCK: Out upon her! Thou torturest me, Tubal. It was my turquoise! I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys.

Is there some other place where this ring is mentioned?

[Hawkman]

Not in the play...

I am indebted to qimissung for drawing my attention to this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/magazine/12SHAKESPEARE.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&position=

I wish I'd written it :D

[kelby_lake]

Does she? I'm not trying to be contrary for the sake of being contrary, but there are few points.

She is presented as being inferior to Portia, at least Lorenzo seems to think more of Portia than he does Jessica (cf. III.v).

Although joking, Launcelot highlights the "problem" with Jessica's conversion, which speaks to the wider social issue of Jews converting to Christianity at the time (for safety or profit). Is Jessica meant to be seen in this light? Taking a place that should belong to a "real Christian?"

And then there is the bizarre "on such a night as this speech" which I can't help but think shows some unspoken problem that exists between Jessica and Lorenzo - unlike the "pure Christian couples" which tie up nicely, Lorenzo and Jessica have an undercurrent of tragedy about them....but as I head, I really don't know what to make of that scene.

She is still inferior I think but she is not an evil Jew. Her conversion, however problematic, makes her good.

[YesNo]

Not in the play...

I am indebted to qimissung for drawing my attention to this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/magazine/12SHAKESPEARE.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&position=

I wish I'd written it :D
I enjoyed reading the article, Hawkman. One of the things I am puzzled by is the apparently established view that the dialog between Tubal and Shylock is somehow "comic". Even Stephen Greenblatt hints that there may be a problem here when he writes in the article you cite:


This is the stuff of comedy, and it is certainly possible to play the scene for laughs. ''The Merchant of Venice'' lends itself easily to vicious anti-Semitic stereotypes -- actors playing Shylock have worn red wigs and grotesque noses -- and Shakespearean comedy understandably continues to offend and upset many people who find it anything but funny.

How do you "play the scene for laughs" given what happens to Shylock in the end unless the laughter originates from an underlying antisemitism?

Now I enjoy comedy. My wife and I saw American Reunion last weekend and we both enjoyed it. We are even re-watching American Pie and American Wedding. One of the main characters, Jim, is Jewish and I find him particularly funny.

But somehow this scene of Shylock with Tubal is not funny. Nor did I find it amusing in the DVD version of the play I recently watched. True, the stunts Portia and Nerissa performed had an element of amusement to them when the humor was directed at their husbands or suitors.

But how is it that one can portray anything that happened to Shylock as funny without being antisemitic?

[Hawkman]

That Shylock is hoping to be revenged on Antonio, each report that Antonio has suffered a loss and the loan will be defaulted on gives Shylock a boost. Each time he hears something about his missing daughter he is depressed. Comedy works by contrasts and comparisons.

It should be noted that Shylock bemoans the loss of his Daughter first, then his ducats.

Of course, how the play or any of its scenes are performed will colour perception, as will dressing Shylock up as a devil, but if, after having read the entire article, you still think the play or it's author are anti-Semitic, nothing anybody says to you is going to change your mind.

I'm withrawing from this discussion now as it's been rather flogged to death.

Live and be well - H

[Charles Darnay]

I enjoyed reading the article, Hawkman. One of the things I am puzzled by is the apparently established view that the dialog between Tubal and Shylock is somehow "comic".

But how is it that one can portray anything that happened to Shylock as funny without being antisemitic?

This conversation in III.i can be (I have seen it) played very comically. Shylock's rapid transitions for grief to joy and Tubal seemingly toying with him is quite funny.

[mona amon]

Read this play yesterday for the first time, just to see if it was anti-semitic or not. :) So much for the question itself being boring or useless. I voted not anti-semitic.


How do you "play the scene for laughs" given what happens to Shylock in the end unless the laughter originates from an underlying antisemitism? - YesNo

It's difficult to explain why one finds something funny, but I did laugh at the "'My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter! Fled with a Christian! O my Christian ducats!" Especially the "Christian ducats". It was the only thing in the whole play I actually found funny. There's nothing that gets outdated more than comedy.

I wasn't laughing at Shylock because he is a Jew, but because he's a despicable character who gets paid back, and the way he reacts is comical, showing he's a lot more concerned about his ducats than his daughter. If the play is performed, it will depend a lot on how clownishly the actor playing Salanio is able to mimic Shylock's ranting and raving. And there's pathos there also. Almost all well drawn despicable characters have a suggestion of tragedy about them.

[YesNo]

This conversation in III.i can be (I have seen it) played very comically. Shylock's rapid transitions for grief to joy and Tubal seemingly toying with him is quite funny.
I just re-read that portion and I don't see the humor in the text, but I think I know why. The reason I don't see the scene as funny is because I don't care enough about Shylock to find his losses interesting. Shakespeare assumed I would find Shylock worthy of hatred without having to prepare me in any way to gloat over his misery.

Have you seen Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361748/

Do you remember the part at the end when Brad Pitt carves the swastika on the turncoat Nazi's forehead after killing the driver? I can see that scene as "funny" or at least as a release of righteous indignation which some people might experience as humor. But neither Tarantino nor Shakespeare are funny in the way American Reunion is funny. That kind of funny does not require hatred.

Shakespeare reminds me a lot of Tarantino. The revenge plots of Kill Bill and Titus Andronicus seem motivated to provide the audience with the same buildup and release of righteous anger. And if there are any good guys who survive the plays or movies these guys write, one could call them comedies.

[YesNo]

It's difficult to explain why one finds something funny, but I did laugh at the "'My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter! Fled with a Christian! O my Christian ducats!" Especially the "Christian ducats". It was the only thing in the whole play I actually found funny. There's nothing that gets outdated more than comedy.

You didn't find the mock cuckold scene that Portia and Nerissa played on their husbands funny?! (Act 5, Sc 1)


PORTIA

Then you shall be his surety. Give him this.
And bid him keep it better than the other.
ANTONIO

Here, Lord Bassanio, swear to keep this ring.
BASSANIO:

By heaven, it is the same I gave the doctor!
PORTIA

I had it of him. Pardon me, Bassanio,
For by this ring, the doctor lay with me.

[kelby_lake]

I wasn't laughing at Shylock because he is a Jew, but because he's a despicable character who gets paid back, and the way he reacts is comical, showing he's a lot more concerned about his ducats than his daughter.

You might not have been laughing at him because he is a Jew but his obsession with money is a typical Jewish stereotype, and Shakespeare's audience would be aware of this, hence why they found it amusing. Modern day audiences may not associate the stereotype with anti-semitism but Shakespeare is playing on racial stereotypes for laughs. I'm not saying that this makes him a bad playwright or makes the play bad- all comic writers play on one stereotype or another- but Shylock's race is inextricably linked to his greediness.

[mona amon]

You didn't find the mock cuckold scene that Portia and Nerissa played on their husbands funny?! (Act 5, Sc 1) - YesNo

Um.. no. I know it's funny, but it doesn'i make me laugh, if you know what I mean. This applies to most of the other 'funny' bits as well.


You might not have been laughing at him because he is a Jew but his obsession with money is a typical Jewish stereotype, and Shakespeare's audience would be aware of this, hence why they found it amusing. Modern day audiences may not associate the stereotype with anti-semitism but Shakespeare is playing on racial stereotypes for laughs. I'm not saying that this makes him a bad playwright or makes the play bad- all comic writers play on one stereotype or another- but Shylock's race is inextricably linked to his greediness. - Kelby Lake


That's true, and I've no doubt Shakespeare started out to give his audience a very 'typical evil jew', but it didn't work out that way. In the end Shakespeare couldn't deny him his humanity. While he has a few characteristics of the stereotype, he also greatly transcends the stereotype.

However, after reading Marlowe's Jew of Malta today and comparing the two, I'm beginning to think there's no simple answer to the question. Barabas is much more villanous and much more of a stereotype than Shylock, but the rest of the folks in the play (christians, as well as muslims for good measure) are just as bad as he is. In Merchant of Venice on the other hand, the christians are portrayed as more noble, and this does give the play an anti semitic slant when compared to The Jew of Malta. They may bully the poor jew a bit, but they believe in mercy and forgiveness, as opposed to the revenge disguised as justice which the jew so stubbornly clings to. The nobleness is obviously undercut by the fact that mercy and forgiveness work very much in the christian's favour in this case, but I don't know if Shakespeare realised that.

[YesNo]

That's true, and I've no doubt Shakespeare started out to give his audience a very 'typical evil jew', but it didn't work out that way. In the end Shakespeare couldn't deny him his humanity. While he has a few characteristics of the stereotype, he also greatly transcends the stereotype.

However, after reading Marlowe's Jew of Malta today and comparing the two, I'm beginning to think there's no simple answer to the question. Barabas is much more villanous and much more of a stereotype than Shylock, but the rest of the folks in the play (christians, as well as muslims for good measure) are just as bad as he is. In Merchant of Venice on the other hand, the christians are portrayed as more noble, and this does give the play an anti semitic slant when compared to The Jew of Malta. They may bully the poor jew a bit, but they believe in mercy and forgiveness, as opposed to the revenge disguised as justice which the jew so stubbornly clings to. The nobleness is obviously undercut by the fact that mercy and forgiveness work very much in the christian's favour in this case, but I don't know if Shakespeare realised that.
I started reading Marlowe's play: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/901/901-h/901-h.htm

The Christians, especially Antonio, with their mercy in The Merchant of Venice and Shylock representing the Jews with his law seem to me to imitate the portrayal of the Jews in the Gospels. Also Antonio's trial reminds me of Jesus' trial before Pilate. I think Shakespeare intended this parallel.

Dinitia Smith's article "It's No More Mr Nice Guy for Shylock (or Shakespeare)" http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/19/movies/it-s-no-more-mr-nice-guy-for-shylock-or-shakespeare.html?src=pm suggests a shift away from a sympathetic view of Shylock to one that could be labeled antisemitic by an audience.

[Delta40]

I noticed Shylock's wailing about the ducats and his daughter and thought 'gee the money seems to be more important than his daughter' and wondered whether it was an intentional emphasis by Shakespeare on the character of Shylock but I missed the point of the Christian ducats. So thanks for that Mona amon. I'm ploughing my way through the play and it's so helpful reading this thread as I go along.

[Delta40]

Ok I just finished reading the play. I loved the court scene and especially Shylock's speech in Act IV Scene I What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong?

I was a little confused about Launcelot Gobbo's dialogue with Jessica and Lorenzo in Act III scene V. If anyone cares to enlighten me?

[YesNo]

I did find amusing Launcelot's economic objection to converting Jews to Christianity on the ground that it would increase the demand for pork without increasing the supply.

[Charles Darnay]

That was great. Also he apparently got a maid pregnant, or might have.

[YesNo]

And the maid was a Moor.


LORENZO

I shall answer that better to the commonwealth than
you can the getting up of the negro's belly: the
Moor is with child by you, Launcelot.

LAUNCELOT

It is much that the Moor should be more than reason:
but if she be less than an honest woman, she is
indeed more than I took her for.

This sort of humor helps in viewing The Merchant of Venice as not antisemitic since one can easily see this as comic relief. Of course the Moors were probably not liked any more than the Jews in Shakespeare's day.

Since I think the play is antisemitic, I should ask myself what would it take to make the whole thing a humorous irony. I think a different ending for Shylock would be all that was necessary along with some reconciliation with his daughter, Jessica.

[Delta40]

The clown seems to me to play a vital role here. I interpreted it as some kind of sarcasm but as he is a clown it must be in the context of comic relief. I'm just about to start Love's Labours Lost and there are clowns in that too so they obviously serve a purpose -not unlike the witches in Macbeth. Effective devices to cast a different light on the character/situation or alter the atmosphere etc. Forgive me as I am new to this realm

[YesNo]

I don't know what the clowns signify, but I'm glad you brought attention to Launcelot, Delta40. I forgot about his pork comment until I reread it. I'm new to this as well. I watched Othello tonight and Twelfth Night last night. They were both pretty good. It was the first time I saw either of them.

[mona amon]

And the maid was a Moor.


LORENZO

I shall answer that better to the commonwealth than
you can the getting up of the negro's belly: the
Moor is with child by you, Launcelot.

LAUNCELOT

It is much that the Moor should be more than reason:
but if she be less than an honest woman, she is
indeed more than I took her for.

This sort of humor helps in viewing The Merchant of Venice as not antisemitic since one can easily see this as comic relief. Of course the Moors were probably not liked any more than the Jews in Shakespeare's day.

Since I think the play is antisemitic, I should ask myself what would it take to make the whole thing a humorous irony. I think a different ending for Shylock would be all that was necessary along with some reconciliation with his daughter, Jessica.

Yes, I too feel the people glorifying the virtues of mercy didn't show Shylock much mercy.

I wonder if he made the maid a Moor just so he could have that bit of word play. :)

[YesNo]

The line, "It is much that the Moor should be more than reason", seems good enough reason to make her a Moor to me as well.

[Charles Darnay]

Launcelot - like many of Shakespeare's clowns - is a comic mirroring or parody of what is happening in the main plot.

Compare Jessica leaving Shylock to Launcelot leaving Shylock.
Compare the strict virtue Portia is forced to live by - as set up by her father with her servants - both Narissa and the maid - who can so freely give themselves away.

I don't know why she is a Moor of if there is meant to be anything more to it. You could begin to draw some parallels between how the Christians interact with the Jew and how the Christian (Launcelot) interacts with the Moor - but these start to become a stretch of the text because we know next to nothing about this maid.

[Delta40]

That's true and yet despite Portia's strict virtue, I was amazed at her and Nerissa's sly deception dressed as men!

[Charles Darnay]

She was free of her father at that point. Her father's law died when Bassanio became her lord.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm kind of confused as to how so many people see Merchant as not being anti-semetic. The time it was written and how racism may have been common back then, the author's intent, etc. make no difference in the actual work. Shylock was portrayed in many negative ways because he was a Jew. That would seem to me an indication of anti-semitism.

[Delta40]

I'm kind of confused as to how so many people see Merchant as not being anti-semetic. The time it was written and how racism may have been common back then, the author's intent, etc. make no difference in the actual work. Shylock was portrayed in many negative ways because he was a Jew. That would seem to me an indication of anti-semitism.

Do you think it is because when read within a historical context rather than a contemporary one, the reader understands that anti-semitism would not have been considered in the way it is now?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm saying the historical context doesn't change anything about the text. Just because anti semitism was perfectly acceptable back then doesn't make it right, even for back then. We can change how we look at the text, interpret it, but we can't change that Shylock is portrayed the way he is because he is a Jew. I can't think of any context in which one can find that not anti semetic.

[Delta40]

I think the way we view anti-semitism today is different to how it was viewed back then.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think the way we view anti-semitism today is different to how it was viewed back then.

I agree. I'm just saying that it's irrelevant.

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm kind of confused as to how so many people see Merchant as not being anti-semetic. The time it was written and how racism may have been common back then, the author's intent, etc. make no difference in the actual work. Shylock was portrayed in many negative ways because he was a Jew. That would seem to me an indication of anti-semitism.

That seems obvious to me as well. That doesn't mean Shakespeare was "bad," or tMoV was "bad," it just adds another layer to the play.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That seems obvious to me as well. That doesn't mean Shakespeare was "bad," or tMoV was "bad," it just adds another layer to the play.

Exactly. If we wanted to label every piece of literature/art that was racist, sexist, or whatever -ist you want bad, it wouldn't leave very much out of that category.

[kelby_lake]

Exactly. If we wanted to label every piece of literature/art that was racist, sexist, or whatever -ist you want bad, it wouldn't leave very much out of that category.

I concur. The portrayal of Shylock is what we would class as anti-semitic. This does not mean that the play is bad or that we are calling Shakespeare a card-carrying member of the KKK- things that we would now call racist were widespread in the past.

[Delta40]

I guess as discussed before the concern is whether we end up on the slippery slope of de-valuing a great work because of its anti-semitism.

[YesNo]

I think it is clear that the text is antisemitic. I don't see any reason to believe that Shakespeare was not antisemitic as well.

The problem is this work is famous enough that it is potentially part of a school curriculum and it can be entertaining. So the question is how to we read this today?

The Nazis, according to John Gross, accepted Shakespeare. Gross writes, "in September 1939 he was the one author exempt from the official ban on enemy dramatists." http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/04/theater/theater-shylock-and-nazi-propaganda.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Also, he writes:


"The Merchant of Venice" enjoyed special popularity from the outset. In 1933 there were no less than 20 separate productions; between 1934 and 1939 there were another 30. The emphasis was in every case strongly anti-Semitic (how could it have been otherwise?), and there were commentators on hand to make sure that audiences did not miss any of the implications.

So, one way of reading this is to justify any lingering antisemitism.

The school district in which I live requires high school students to read the play, but this school district has a high Jewish influence. They make sure none of the antisemitism is missed.

I have heard that other school districts have passed on making this text part of the required curriculum because of its antisemitism. After all, there are plenty of other things to read.

As ordinary readers, who aren't required to read it, what should our attitudes to the play be? I think acknowledging the antisemitism is the least we can do.

[kelby_lake]

I don't understand why so many people think the play is not antisemitic. What about blackface and the black and white minstrels? I'd say they were pretty racist, even if there might have been some "sympathetic" portrayals. Same with Shylock.

[YesNo]

I don't understand why so many people think the play is not antisemitic. What about blackface and the black and white minstrels? I'd say they were pretty racist, even if there might have been some "sympathetic" portrayals. Same with Shylock.
I think I agree with you. There are possibly other problems than antisemitism with the play.

One of the things my daughter has mentioned about her language arts instuctor is that she knows how to get an A on her homework: just identify as much antisemitism, racism, or sexism that she can find in the text and she has the A in the bag. Actually, I'm glad she's learning to be aware of these things.

[Delta40]

Forgive me for asking this but anti-semitic or not, art should not prevent us from performing what is undeniable harsh truth on the basis of PC should it? I would be disappointed to know that plays cannot expose the realities which exist in the world today. I've written a play which focuses on the stolen children generation, where indigenous kids were torn from their families (only the less black ones) and placed in foster care during the White Australia Policy years. You're not suggesting that such truths be buried, such characters who woud compare 'abos' to an ape to remain silent are you?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No . . . at least I'm not. Knowing the members of these forums, I doubt anyone else feels differently.

[Delta40]

Good. It's just that Yes/No said there were other problems with the play.

[YesNo]

Forgive me for asking this but anti-semitic or not, art should not prevent us from performing what is undeniable harsh truth on the basis of PC should it? I would be disappointed to know that plays cannot expose the realities which exist in the world today. I've written a play which focuses on the stolen children generation, where indigenous kids were torn from their families (only the less black ones) and placed in foster care during the White Australia Policy years. You're not suggesting that such truths be buried, such characters who woud compare 'abos' to an ape to remain silent are you?
No, these truths should not be buried and a play is a good way to show them. I hope your play is successful.

What would you think of a play that said it was a good thing that indigenous kids were torn from their families? Or in some way justified what happened?

[Delta40]

No, these truths should not be buried and a play is a good way to show them. I hope your play is successful.

What would you think of a play that said it was a good thing that indigenous kids were torn from their families? Or in some way justified what happened?

Yes/No there are people out there who believed it at the time - some still do. One of the characters in my play is one of those people.

[kelby_lake]

What would you think of a play that said it was a good thing that indigenous kids were torn from their families? Or in some way justified what happened?

That is an interesting question. What if Shakespeare had written The Merchant of Venice now instead of over 400 years ago?

[Delta40]

a work of contemporary fiction set in an historical context? Then you might get an uproar!

[YesNo]

I don't see anything racist with presenting characters who are racist in a story or play. That does not make the play or story itself racist. If you look at the movie The Help about southern blacks in the US during the 1950s or 1960s you will see a lot of racist people and situations portrayed, but that doesn't make the movie itself racist. The movie goes beyond any of the racism exhibited in the characters.

[kelby_lake]

a work of contemporary fiction set in an historical context? Then you might get an uproar!

What if the story was contemporary as well?

[Delta40]

I think if the story was contemporary then it has all the possibilities to expose the truth of anti-semitism. I would hope that people squirm in their seats.

I guess thinking about the play I've written, which exposes a shameful part of a country's racist history among other things, I don't expect it to offer comfort or answers - just a stark aftermath. How the audience deal with that is anybody's guess.

[SentimentalSlop]

The Merchant of Venice is not antisemitic, by any means. Take into consideration the fact that Shylock could care less about his faith. Judaism and Christianity are both against usury, but the usury laws only applied to the Christians, and the Jews were free to do what they wanted. Shylock is a sorry excuse for a Jew, and Antonio is a sorry excuse for a Christian. Antonio plays the phony Christ character. Instead of trying to defend himself and speak up, he acts pitiful and just takes it. Christ had a reason he had to die (according to the gospels). What excuse does Antonio have? He's trying to act like some martyr, but he's completely perverting Christ's example. Shakespeare is poking fun at religious hypocrites, not the religions themselves.

[stanley2]

While Professor Leggatt, for the New Folger edition, suggested that various readings are "allowed" by the text and historian Michael Wood complained that there are too many unanswered questions left at the end of the play, the author made it difficult to rate the portrayal of Shylock anti-Semitic. Shylock's "I hate him for he he is a Christian, / But more.....," echoes Romeo's "Here's much to do with hate, but more with love." Romeo threatens to kill himself with a dagger to "sack / The hateful mansion"(ROM3.3). Shylock's "I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?"(MV3.1) echoes Juliet's "What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot, / Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part / Belonging to a man"(Rom2.1). Shylock's "My deeds upon my head! I crave the law"(MV4.1.204 or so) might recall lines from Hermia's father Egeus in A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM: "Enough, enough, my lord; you have enough. / I beg the law, the law, upon his head"(MND4.1).

[Pike Bishop]

TMOV is a brilliant play with a portrayal of a Jewish character that is both anti-semitic and humanizing. That isn't surprising, considering nobody was better at humanizing characters than Shakespeare, but he was still the product of an anti-Semitic culture and era. There are many non-anti-Semitic texts that have anti-Semitic characters. South Park is one if them. TMOV is not.

[YesNo]

The Merchant of Venice is a sore spot for people who think Shakespeare could do no wrong. People make mistakes. I think it is better to view the work as anti-semitic and not try to sugar-coat it.

[stanley2]

I'm reminded of Norrie Epstein's interview with an actor in her book THE FRIENDLY SHAKESPEARE where she says: "The play drives me crazy." Therefore, I have found it helpful to note that from the first line to the last, the text is linked to ROMEO AND JULIET. Also, in MND we find Egeus bringing his problem to the Duke of Athens in the first scene: "Full of vexation come I, with complaint / Against my child, my daughter Hermia."

[stanley2]

In Act 2, scene 2, the clown Lancelet presents a debate between his "conscience" and "the fiend." In ROMEO, the Friar is introduced with a lengthy monologue speaking of virtue, vice, grace and rude will. Therefore, when Shylock says "I am debating of my present store"(1.3), we can make of it what we like. As note #145 suggests, anti- semitism is a real concern. If we allow Antonio and Shylock to feel emotions as real people do, it is a matter for discussion, as we have seen.

[stanley2]

oops again

[stanley2]

I wish Mr. Yesno would engage the text a bit. The Friar's "Two such opposed kings encamp them still / In man as well as herbs, grace and rude will"(ROM2.1) would be a good place to start as pretending, when considering MV, that Sh wrote nothing else is absurd. Professor Bate wrote that "From Baptista Minola in THE TAMING OF THE SHREW and Egeus in A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM to Juliet's father to Shylock to Polonius and on to King Lear himself, Shakespeare again and again portrays fathers who show folly, not wisdom, in their attempts to make or break marital arrangements for their daughters." Revenge is a topic in HAMLET throughtout. In ROMEO, Tybalt does not specify the "injuries" that he insists that Romeo has caused. Tybalt's speech, though, does put into motion the fighting that ends the lives of both himself and Mercutio.

[YesNo]

I think it has been a couple years since I watched a presentation of The Merchant of Venice. I am using this summary to refresh my memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_of_Venice

Some reasons for considering the play antisemitic are the following:

1) Shylock loses everything and the play is considered a "comedy".
2) I can't see why anyone would want that pound of flesh after being offered double the amount of the loan. Shylock is being characterized as irrational and murderous.
3) Shylock is forced to convert to Christianity.
4) As the link notes, "Regardless of what Shakespeare's authorial intent may have been, the play has been made use of by antisemites throughout the play's history."

[stanley2]

"Mark you this, Bassanio, / The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose "(MV1.3). You might take a break from writing challenging posts and read one of Professor Greenblatt's books, as recomended by Mr. Bishop. In the court or trial scene, there is no indication that Bassanio is not standing between Shylock and Antonio throughout, that is, until Portia has ruled against Shylock. It seems that the phrase "pound of flesh" was already becoming proverbial when Shakespeare picked it up.

[Pompey Bum]

:yikes:

Edit: Oh sorry. Something in my eye.

[YesNo]

"Mark you this, Bassanio, / The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose "(MV1.3). You might take a break from writing challenging posts and read one of Professor Greenblatt's books, as recomended by Mr. Bishop. In the court or trial scene, there is no indication that Bassanio is not standing between Shylock and Antonio throughout, that is, until Portia has ruled against Shylock. It seems that the phrase "pound of flesh" was already becoming proverbial when Shakespeare picked it up.

I could not find a history of the phrase "pound of flesh" that did not have the earliest reference to The Merchant of Venice, but I only did a quick internet search.

Who used it before Shakespeare?

[stanley2]

I am indeed, as they say, "in over my head" or "out of my depth" on that point. Perhaps my profile at this site needs work, like, I have the mind of a five year old who was glad to be rid of it or I wouldn't know a proverbial from an idiom if, etc. My comment came about from reading editors notes regarding "sources" such as ""But the Jew in Silvayn's narrative in not benign in his rejecting payment of a bond and demanding a pound of the merchant's flesh," and "The so-called 'flesh-bond' may be traced back to the MAHABARATA. Also, In Professor Gross' fine book SHYLOCK IS SHAKESPeARE, we find "The forced conversion is Shakespeare's most conspicuous addition to the traditional pound-of-flesh legend." Therefore, "This is not altogether fool, my Lord." Some might argue that the phrase is not proverbial or idiomatic even today except among a small group of people who wear bow ties every day. At any rate, no , I do not have an example that you ask for. I meant to suggest that the phrase may have become proverbial or whatever even if Shakespeare did not write this play.

[YesNo]

It would be interesting if the idea of a flesh-bond could be traced back to the Mahabharata. I've only read the part that became the Bhagavad Gita in it.

I'm also out of my depth when it comes to Shakespeare or even this play.

[Munshie]

YesNo

I would recommend you read the whole of the Mahabharata. Might sound strange thing for someone brought up as Muslim but now long time atheist to say. I was thinking of starting a thread about the wonderful stories/plot lines and characters in the book. Personally I did not enjoy the Ramayana as much, but both books are on my bookshelf at home. If nothing else, reading them will give you a better understanding of the values and references in Indian culture, rather similar to reading the Bible gives insights into European cultures and values. (Yes I have read the bible cover to cover too, when I was 17 years old and the new English translation of the Bible was first published.)

[YesNo]

One day I plan on reading the Mahabharata. I haven't read much of the Bible. I can only remember reading Genesis, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, Job, parts of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and Revelation primarily because people referred to them. I've read the shorter surahs at the end of the Quran.

What do you think of The Merchant of Venice? Do you think it is an antisemitic play? After watching it a few years ago, it gave me the impression that it was. I didn't enjoy it either. Probably the only play by Shakespeare that I wouldn't mind seeing again is Midsummer Night's Dream.

[Munshie]

YesNo

Yes we did cover Merchants of Venice at school. I have read quite a few of the responses from people on that thread. My views are (pardon the pun) coloured by my work as a senior manager in local government addressing the issues of equality/diversity. I have also as a racially discriminated against minority in the UK been a political activist around equality issues. That said your question can be answered at two levels. Is the play itself and how it portrays Shylock anti-semitic? IMO yes, it's ani-semitic (even though as a good writer Shakespeare gives Shylock some good lines.) To me the other important question is whether we can or ought to apply modern day standards of morality to historical situations (fictional or real). In this regard, Shakespeare was only reflecting popular and public attitudes to Jewish people. He would have to describe Shylock as a Jew in ways that were familiar to his audience.

I think the same sort of arguments can be used about Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer, The Last of the Mohicans etc. Those novels (all of which I have read despite them having a particular resonance for Americans) reflect the morality/social mores of their time. To retrorespectively label them racist is unhelpful.

[YesNo]

Thanks, Munshie.

We partially agree. I have also worked in corporate environments where harassment issues are openly discussed for the company's legal protection. So we agree that the text is antisemitic.

I don't agree with the idea that it was acceptable for Shakespeare to have written such a play because the common sense standards of morality were different in his day. One could excuse even the audience on those grounds. The most I would grant is that it would be easier for him to write such a play hundreds of years ago than it would be today.

I've heard such arguments used to justify people like Thomas More who had the power and ordered religious opponents burnt at the stake. (See "God's Bestseller" for details). I don't think those arguments excuse More any more than they excuse Shakespeare. Nor do the arguments of relative cultural morality justify those who canonized More.

[Munshie]

YesNo

You make a fair point.

[stanley2]

One guess re the brevity of Mr. Pompey Bum's note, as we have learned to expect him to share more from the "great heap"(AS YOU LIKE IT) of his knowledge, is that he may not have read the play for some time. This seems to be common, that is, people stop by MV and then rush off, or return to the later plays ASAP. Shylock is then no more than a "bad example" and the play is bad. Once again, though, Romeo threatens to "sack the hateful mansion," that is, to kill himself with a knife or dagger(ROM3.3). This from a "virtuous and well-governed youth"(ROM1.4). Therefore, Shylock is dealing with common problems. As the ladies here have suggested, conflict is a convention in drama. In MV, the major conflict is between Antonio and Shylock. Also noted is the real question of who is most to blame.

[Pompey Bum]

No Stan. It was an inside joke having to do with your mention of a former member who was banned. It had nothing to do with the play or your opinions or you. Sorry to have hurt your feelings. I'm glad you enjoy my heaps, though. ;-)

[stanley2]

Now I have it: Enter Jeeves and Wooster

[stanley2]

As they .say, Yup, Shakespeare was good. And the conclusion of THE ODYSSEY was very very likely on his mind. Thanks for stopping by, guys.

[YesNo]

We were talking about the origin of the pound of flesh, stanley2. I read more of the wikipedia article I cited earlier and apparently Shakespeare did not make it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_of_Venice


The forfeit of a merchant's deadly bond after standing surety for a friend's loan was a common tale in England in the late 16th century. In addition, the test of the suitors at Belmont, the merchant's rescue from the "pound of flesh" penalty by his friend's new wife disguised as a lawyer, and her demand for the betrothal ring in payment are all elements present in the 14th-century tale Il Pecorone by Giovanni Fiorentino, which was published in Milan in 1558. Elements of the trial scene are also found in The Orator by Alexandre Sylvane, published in translation in 1596. The story of the three caskets can be found in "Gesta Romanorum", a collection of tales probably compiled at the end of the 13th century.

[stanley2]

Indeed, or yes. Early on, when I picked up some of the more famous plays for the first time, I remember the thought occurred, "There seems to be a source for EVERYTHING." And then he seems to have woven together more than one source, and sprinkled various things over it.

[YesNo]

If makes me wonder if Shakespeare came up with any original plot.

[Jackson Richardson]

The Merry Wives of Windsor and Love's Labour's Lost. Neither of his best.

[stanley2]

So there you have it. The best answer to this thread's question is Mr. Yesno's username, YesNo. "Yes" won't work because one must attempt to pretend that Billy S. wrote nothing else, something I've attempted to do, which is , I'm fairly certain, impossible. "No
" won't work either because as Mr. Yesno noted, "people make mistakes." One mistake people make sometimes is being or feeling anti-everything. It seems that Antonio and Shylock feel that way a bit.

[stanley2]

That is, some of us learn straight away that a first impression or single glimpse of a Shakespeare play, however interesting, doesn't work either. The thought that the conclusion of THE ODYSSEY is the major literary allusion in the play occurs a bit further down the road.

[stanley2]

In Act 3,scene 3 we have Solanio's "I am sure the Duke / Will never grant this forfeiture to hold," and Antonio's reply: "The Duke cannot deny the course of law, / For the commodity that strangers have / With us in venice, if it be denied, / Will much impeach the justice of the state, / Since that the trade and profit of the city / Consisteth of all nations. Therefore, go. / These griefs and losses have so bated me, / That I shall hardly spare a pound of flesh / Tomorrow to my bloody creditor. / Well, gaoler, on. Pray God Bassanio come / To see me pay his dept, and then I care not!" What are we to make of this? Is Antonio suggesting that somewhere in the world bankers are allowed to murder their customers and therefore it should be so in Venice? Thus , Antonio is as goofy or melancholy as Shylock. They are both grieving the loss of Shylock's wife. There are other implications, to be sure, but if we compare the play to R&J and MND, the above is plain enough.

[Danik 2016]

Dear stanley,
I don´t know what you mean with "R&J and MND", but Antonio is saying that Shylock´s demand is legal. I don´t think this particular passage has anything to do with Shylock´s wife. Antonio is mourning his own material losses and,I think, more implicitly the loss of Bassanio throug the latter´s marriage to Portia.

[stanley2]

Eminent scholar J. Dover Wilson recommended comparing MV and ROMEO AND JULIET in his book SHAKESPEARE'S HAPPY COMEDIES. The passage before us corresponds to a passage in R&J. Juliet's line, "all men call thee fickle," corresponds to Antonio's "all nations." Just prior to Juliet's speech, Romeo departs for Mantua. Prior to Antonio's line, Shylock exits the scene. Shylock's next appearance is in the court scene. Further comparison results in more linguistic connections. To be continued.

[Danik 2016]

I see, Stanley. There is the possibility of those minute comparisons, but I often don´t see much point in them. How does J. Dover Wilson justify them?

[stanley2]

One minute subject at a time. Professor Thomas Parrott wrote that MV is "a romantic comedy, almost a fairy tale, rendered credible by the poet's art." In her book, THE FRIENDLY SHAKESPEARE, Norrie Epstein included an interview with an actor. She asked him if Antonio is gay. His reply, if memory serves, is "you're not to know, he's a puzzle at the center of the play." Antonio's "These griefs and losses" allows us to make up our own mind. In Act 3, scene 1, we learn that someone named Leah gave Shylock a ring. In Act 3, scene 2, Portia gives Bassanio a ring. In ROMEO AND JULIET, Act 3, scene 2, Juliet sends the Nurse to deliver a ring to Romeo. Romeo tells his man in Act 5, scene 3 that he intends to retrieve "a precious ring." Therefore, all the principal male characters in the two plays have been given a ring except Antonio. One may then argue that is because he is gay and loves Bassanio or he loved Leah who married Shylock.

[stanley2]

Wilson's book is in a library miles away. I believe he simply wrote that comparison is "interesting" and both plays have tragical and comical elements. He also wrote that he found Shakespeare's sympathies were no less for Shylock than "the spitting Antonio." Perhaps this opinion is more likely if R&J is fresh in the mind of the reader. For example, Romeo's "The time and my intents are savage wild, / More fierce and more inexorable far / Than empty tigers or the roaring sea"(ROM5.3.37-9) clearly corresponds to lines from Antonio and Gratiano in Act 4, scene 1 of MV.

[stanley2]

In Act 5, scene 3 of R&J, Romeo and Count Paris are both grieving the reported death of Juliet. They confront each other and Romeo kills Paris. In MV, we find Shylock and Antonio in confrontation. In the former, the reader knows that Juliet is still alive. In the latter, The characters know more than the reader regarding Shylock's wife. Therefore, one possibility is that, once again, both parties are grieving the loss of a lady and are rival lovers.

[stanley2]

In the first scene of MV we find: "I pray you, good Bassanio, let me know it, / And if it stand as you yourself still do, / Within the eye of honor, be assured / My purse, my person, my extremest means / Lie all unlocked to your occasions." Therefore, Antonio is much concerned with the concept of "honor," as was Tybalt: "Now, by the stock and honor of my kin, / To strike him dead I hold it not a sin"(ROM1.5.60-1). Capulet responds to his nephew: "Why, how now, kinsman? "Wherefore storm you so?" In Act one, scene 3 of MV we have: "Why look you, how you storm!" We may then infer various things.

[Danik 2016]

I feel we are having this discussion for years. If one concentrates to much on certain recurrent details present in several plays one loses the specificity of the play at hand. For example, this about Shylock´s deceased wife. Antonio had his prejudices. They would hardly allow him to fall in love with a Jewess.

[stanley2]

There are three lines in KING LEAR that I like to recall. In the first scene, Kent says to Lear: "This is not altogether fool, my lord." Gloucester's last line is "And that's true too." In the last scene Lear says to Kent: "You are welcome hither." Documenting that Antonio is as goofy or melancholy as Shylock is specific to MV and is in keeping with Professor Wilson's comments(see note 176 above).

[stanley2]

The line in KING LEAR from Kent is actually a bit later, Act 1 scene 4. Now, one comment earlier in this thread, "The arrogance(and stupidity) of the man is staggering.........What a twit!" might stimulate one to respond as it is about Antonio. Perhaps Professor Bevington's introduction to the play is the best. He uses the terms "paradox" and "undoubted ironies." The beginning of the play is also stimulating: "In sooth I know not why I am so sad............And such a want-wit sadness makes of me / That I have much ado to know myself." The phrase "want-wit" allows one to argue that Antonio finds himself "lacking in good sense"(Bevington's gloss). Professor Goddard's comments are also interesting as he suggested that Antonio's sadness may be in part attributable to a long standing romantic passion.

[stanley2]

In his book THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE, Professor Kermode wrote of the trial or court scene: "The trial is folklore, and the judgment comes from a folklore lawyer, but the issues are real enough." Therefore, the scene is exciting. Further review, I think, allows one to suggest that only Shylock, Antonio and Portia make it so stimulating. The Duke gives us a clue regarding why he is allowing the case to be presented: "The world thinks, and I think so too, / That thou but lead'st this fashion of thy malice / To the last hour of act, and then 'tis thought / Thou'lt show thy mercy and remorse more strange / Than is thy strange and apparent cruelty"(4.1.16-20). That is, he hopes that the proceedings will resolve, at least in part, the conflict between Antonio and Shylock. When this is not happening, he turns things over to Portia. Her "the Venetian law / Cannot impugn you as you do proceed"(4.1.180-1), is one of the "thousand raw tricks"(3.4.77) that she warns us she may "practice." It also allows her famous "quality of mercy" speech that may be be intended to save the life of Shylock. Bassanio's "You shall not seal to such a bond for me!"(1.3.150) may mean simply that he regards the proposed terms as "bad form." Therefore, Shylock and Antonio alone regard the forfeiture to have any legal standing.

[stanley2]

And Danik, one of your comments in kev67's Sonnet thread(5/13/2019) might remind one that "The lunatic, the lover, and the poet are / Are of imagination all compact" (MND5.1.7-8). Lancelet the clown is a kind of lover: "Adieu. Tears exhibit my tongue. Most beautiful pagan, most sweet Jew!...........these foolish drops do something drown my manly spirit"(MV2.3.10-14). In AS YOU LIKE IT, Rosalind says: "But cousin, what if we assayed to steal / The clownish fool out of your father's court? / Would he not be a comfort to our travail?"(AYL1.3.126-8). Celia replies: "He'll go along o'er the wide world with me." The clownish fool is Touchstone, whose speech sometimes echos that of Lancelet. Touchstone's call, "Holla, you, clown!"(AYL2.4.63) might recall Lancelet's "Sola, sola! Wo ha ho! sola, sola!(MV5.1.39). And who do we find speaking with Jessica in the scene right before the trial scene? It is Lancelet, and therefore the author does suggest what I have set forth.

[Danik 2016]

I don´t remember my comment any more, stanley. My point about Shakespeare with you is, that one can compare his works minutely, but without disregarding the specificity of each text.

[stanley2]

I'll try to do so. I remember your comment as it is part of a very fine discussion of the Sonnets and pointed the way back to AS YOU LIKE IT. Your comment(#172) here that Antonio is saying that Shylock's demand is legal brings about the question of why does he say so. Back in the first scene of the play Solanio says "Why, then you are in love." His reply, "Fie, fie!," has been glossed as the first hint that he is gay. He may instead prefer not to confess an adulterous desire that he is ashamed of. If this desire was for Shylock's wife, we then have yet another motive for revenge. We then might ask again why Portia suggests that Shylock's demand is legal: "A pound of that same merchant's flesh is thine. The court awards it, and the law doth give it"(4.1.297-8). One answer is that it is allowed by the fairy story element of the play. Another, then, is that Portia, who seems to know everything that's going on in Venice, is aware that Antonio desired Shylock's wife and therefore recommends mercy.

[Danik 2016]

Thanks for considering my comment, stanley. As I stated already I don´t think that the enmity between Shylock and Antonio has anything to do with Shylocks deceased wife. The reasons for the hatred, to my mind, are, on both sides, prejudice and commercial usages. Shylock states explicitly: “I hate him for he is a Christian, / But more for that in low simplicity/ He lends out money gratis and brings down/The rate of usance here with us in Venice”.

In regard to Antonio´s love life I am more inclined to think that he has a love interest in Bassanio.

[stanley2]

I caught a performance of the 1994 Goodman Theatre production in Chicago. One critic wrote: "At it's best a fascinating mess." The actor playing Antonio was excellent, however. At one point there was a pause in the dialogue. From where I sat though, Antonio and Bassanio were hidden by stage props. I then said to myself: "Oh! Antonio MAY be gay!" Since then I've encountered nothing to counteract the thought that this was surely the author's intention. On the other hand, one of the comments here from a while back reads: "There are so many ways to look at the play that I'm not sure Shakespeare himself quite had the whole situation sorted out." Shylock's lines, "I hate him for he is a Christian / But more"MV1.3.39-40) recall Romeo's "Here's much to do with hate, but more with love. / Why then, O brawling love, O loving hate, / O anything, of nothing first created! / O heavy lightness, serious vanity, / Misshapen chaos of well-seeming forms........"(Rom1.1.178-182).

[stanley2]

We may both be in the ballpark, so to speak, regarding Antonio: "Two loves I have of comfort and despair, / Which like two spirits do suggest me still: / The better angel is a man right fair, / The worser spirit a woman colour'd ill......."(Sonnet 144). The terms of the bond are first proposed "in a merry sport"(MV1.3.144!).

[stanley2]

And thanks, Danik, for pointing the way back to Portia: "Tarry a little, there is something else"(MV4.1.302). Or, as Professor Mahon put it: "Again, the most effective readings, of whatever 'school,' take the entire play into account." The late Professor Bloom wrote that the play is "endlessly ironic." Thus we find Nick Bottom, once again: "And yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together nowadays. The more pity that some honest neighbors will not make them friends."(A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM,3.1.138-140). This is from the adulterous episode between Bottom and Titania.

[Danik 2016]

You may be right, Stanley, but the fact is I still think Shylocks deceased wife doesn´t have anything to do with the hatred between merchant and usurer.

As for Portia, I think she went to Venice not only to save Antonio, but also to clear the ambiguous situation between Antonio, Bassanio and herself. It is in this light that I read the humdrum about the rings. Besides testing how important Antonio was for Bassanio, Portia elicited a second pledge from Antonio, that he would warrant Bassanio´s fidelity to her.So Portia killed two hares at a stroke, without being too obvious. She showed what might happen to Bassanio, if he broke his faith to her and she pledged the word of Antonio, incidentally the only one in behalf of who Bassanio might be faithless to herself.

[stanley2]

A great while ago, Professor Parrott wrote that the Sonnets were mostly written "somewhere between 1594 and 1598; some, it may be, later." This is exactly the period when MND, R&J and MV were written. "Shakespeare followed the fashion, but as usual he followed it in his own way.......The conventional lament that mourns an unrequited love is altogether absent......after a brief period of alienation the poet forgives and rejoins his friend, assured, as a man of the Renaissance would be, that true friendship is a purer, loftier thing than woman's love." In the last scene of MV we find: "I am the unhappy subject of these quarrels"(MV5.1.238). The line just before reads: "For if I do, I'll mar the young clerk's pen." Gratiano's remark is glossed by Professor Bevington: "With sexual double meaning." There are plenty of these double meanings in R&J: "Draw thy tool, here comes of the house of Monatagues"(ROM1.1.30"). As many of us first encounter in CLIFF'S NOTES, Romeo's last lines are more "womanish"(ROM3.3.110) than Juliet's. Therefore, Antonio's "with all brief and plain conveniency / Let me have judgement and the Jew his will"(MV4.1.82-3) allows us to identify his passion with Romeo's. Shylock's "That I follow thus / A losing suit against him"(MV4.1.61), corresponds to Juliet's "And learn me how to lose a winning match(ROM3.2.12), thus indirectly suggesting Romeo's passion. As Isaac Asimov noted, the effects of the "distilling liquor"(ROM4.1.95) that the Friar gives Juliet are fictional, that is, have not occurred in nature. Therefore, we might pardon Romeo for killing himself.

[Danik 2016]

But when you take these sentences out of their original context, they can be read in several ways, can´t they, Stanley?

[stanley2]

The truth. Here in the Chicago area we've had Roman Catholic holy man Cardinal Cupich performing on Sunday mornings on television for a half hour. If you type in "the who, live at leeds, tommy, go to the mirror," and turn the volume to a middle level, you may agree that the lines "What is happening in his head" and "from you I get the story" might be read as inspired, in part, by studying Shakespeare. Shakespearean baseball fans(I'm referring to Canadian entertainers Wayne and Shuster's comedy sketch from the 1950's) such as myself may find that we are upset with the performance of our team in MV. That is, if the play is simply team Shylock verses team Antonio, we are not happy(Hawkman's "What a twit!," quoted above, is one example). Ron Rosenbaum and the late Harold Bloom are and were fans of team Shylock.

[Danik 2016]

I´m afraid, I didn´t understand you. Did you get the impression that for me MV is just Shylock x Antonio?

[stanley2]

In post #192, you mention "original context." I noted that the phrase "merry sport" is found in Act 1, scene 3. Therefore, why did Shakespeare put it there? I've been suggesting that context is one way to study this play. In Act 4, scene 1, Antonio says: "bid her be judge / Whether Bassanio had not once a love"(MV4.1.272-3). I pointed out that in Sonnet 144 the poet says the very same thing. In Sonnet 20, we find: "Till nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting,........./ But since she prick'd thee out for women's pleasure, / Mine be thy love, and thy love's use their treasure." In Sonnet 128, the poet envies the wooden keys on a musical instrument that one of his two loves is playing as they get to touch her fingers. In the conclusion we find: "Since saucy jacks so happy are in this, / Give them thy fingers, me thy lips to kiss. " Therefore, it is more likely that Antonio desires sex with women. The fairy story element of the play allows us to, as you suggest, read the matter as we like.

[Danik 2016]

I´m no native, Stanley, but I suppose, Shakespeare uses the expression "merry sport" as a synonym of "merry game" in a playful sense. He is not referring to the modern sport categories, I think.

[stanley2]

During the play within the play in MND we have: "The best in this kind are but shadows; and the worst are no worse, if imagination amend them," and Hippolyta's reply, "It must be your imagination then, and not theirs"(MND5.1.210-11). In the Prince's speech that concludes R&J we have: "Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things"(R&J5.3.307). In this thread we have from Hawkman: "Shylock's interaction with Antonio constitutes the drama of the piece. It's what drives the plot forward." From Charles D. we have: "The love story is the driving point of the play."

[Danik 2016]

I think, we have at least two stories in MV: The hate and revenge story of Antonio and Shylock and the love story of Bassanio and Portia. But you could also say that there are two love stories: the love story of Antonio and Bassanio and the love story of Bassanio and Portia.

[stanley2]

Another puzzle we have is how did Portia and her cousin prepare for the court appearance? Bellario's letter to the Duke reads: "We turned o'er many books together"(MV4.1.156). On the other hand, when Portia says "Tarry a little," she may be reviewing her cousin's "notes"(3.4.51). Much more certain is Antonio's "You may as well go stand upon the beach / And bid the main flood bate his usual height; / You may as well use question with the wolf"(MV4.1.71-3) and Gratiano's "O, be thou damned, inexecrable dog!"(4.1.128). Some editors replace "inexecrable" with "inexorable". Inexecrable is in keeping with Bassanio's "Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing"(1.1.114). These lines are clearly intended to recall Romeo's lines to his man in the last scene of R&J(see post #176).

.

[Danik 2016]

A good question that, stanley. The play doesn´t make that clear, but I suppose that Portia was instructed privately or even at a law university. Portia was intelligent and avid of knowledge. And it is very possible that she was prepared to administrate her wast inheritance. Law is a complex subject and just reading her cousins notes wouldn´t enable a brilliant court defence.

[stanley2]

Professor Bevington suggested that "Renaissance Neoplatonism, depicting love as a chain or ladder from the basest carnality to the supreme love of God for man," helps explain Antonio's relationship with Bassanio: "On this ladder, perfect friendship and spiritual union are more sublimely Godlike than sexual fulfillment." Professor Bate, however, quotes W. H. Auden: "Shylock, however unintentionally, did, in fact, hazard all for the sake of destroying the enemy he hated; and Antonio, however unthinkingly he signed the bond, hazarded all to secure the happiness of the man he loved." These obscurities may be in part, Shakespeare's response to the uncertainties surrounding the death of Christopher Marlowe and the strange case of Dr. Lopez, who was hanged for conspiring to murder his client, the queen. Marlowe was reportedly killed with a dagger. The coroner ruled than the man who killed him acted in self defense. Marlowe is thought to have been gay and atheist. It may then be tempting to say that Antonio is at the end of the play the same as at the start, simply a melancholy man.

[Danik 2016]

Professor Bevington and Professor Bate may be right. As a person Antonio is melancholy from the beginning to the end of the play, but his initial protagonism as a character has to give way to Portia´s. He loses not only Bassanio but also the limelight to her, ending the play among the secondary characters.

But is there any evidence that Marlowe´s death has anything to do with MV?

[stanley2]

I'll return to Marlowe's death later. In his introduction, Professor Drakakis notes that a play called THE THREE LADIES OF LONDON "was evidently popular " in the early 1580's. Bevington tells us that the Jewish character in that play "is an exemplary person." Marlowe's play, THE JEW OF MALTA, written in the late 1580's, is a very different play. Shakespeare, then, took a different approach. In ROMEO AND JULIET, the Friar says "Two such opposed kings encamp them still / In man as well as herbs--grace and rude will"(R&J2.3.25-6). In MV, Lancelet the clown says to Bassanio: "you have the grace of God, sir, and he hath enough."(MV2.2.133). Therefore, in MV the audience hopes to learn whether Shylock is more like Tybalt and Mercutio or like Romeo.

[Danik 2016]

"Therefore, in MV the audience hopes to learn whether Shylock is more like Tybalt and Mercutio or like Romeo."
Not sure, if the audience is making any comparisons between MV and other plays, but Shylock is certainly no Romeo. No Mercutio either, though he has some grotesques moments.

[stanley2]

The author also recommends comparison of Shylock and Capulet. Capulet says to his daughter: "How, how, how ,how, chop-logic? What is this?............But fettle your fine joints 'gainst Thursday next.........Or I will drag thee on a hurdle thither....."(ROM3.5.150-157). Shylock says to Tubal: "Why there, there, there, there..........Would she were hearsed at my foot, and the ducats in her coffin"(MV3.1.71-78). Lady Capulet's response to her husband, ""Fie, fie! What, are you mad?," is a serious question as MV begins with Antonio telling us that "sadness" has made him a "want-wit" and at the end of the court scene Shylock is "not well"(MV4.1.394).

[Danik 2016]

Well, both have daughters that rebel against the will of their fathers, because of their lovers. But while one is of the side of Julia Capulet, I personally I´m not so sure about Rebecca. She robs her own father and the play gives some indications that the love relationship might not last.

[stanley2]

And Professor Bate tells us that Shakespeare "found in Ovid a great store of examples of female feeling---something that was notably lacking in many of his other models, such as the plays of Marlowe and the history books of Plutarch and Holinshed." Professor Kermode marked the uncertainty surrounding the deaths of Marlowe and Dr. Lopez by sharing his opinions that "Marlowe was murdered, but that was when he was apparently engaged in his second career as a spy" and Lopez "was in 1594 tried on false evidence." Morocco's farewell, "Portia adieu, I have too grieved a heart / To take a tedious leave. Thus losers part"(MV2.7.26-7), foreshadows Antonio's "These griefs and losses"(3.3.32). In making his choice, Morocco says: "Let's see once more this saying graved in gold: / 'Who chooseth me shall gain what many men desire.' / Why that's the lady, all the world desires her, / From the four corners of the earth they come / To kiss this shrine, this mortal breathing saint"(MV2.7.36-40). "Saint" and "shrine" are also found in Romeo and Juliet's first conversation, which, we are told is in the form of a Shakespearean sonnet. Therefore, the author recommends comparison of the Sonnets once again with the play.

[Danik 2016]

I must have a look at Ovid, sometime.

I see, but what does Marlowe's life or death have to do with MV?

Maybe it was usual at that time to compare "good" women to saints.?

[stanley2]

Among other things, the author seems to be recommending sympathy for grieving widowers and eccentric gays. The play begins with discussion of Antonio's melancholy. One possible cause is clearly stated in A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM: "This passion, and the death of a dear friend, would go near to make a man look sad"(MND5.1.284-5). Shylock's "What, wouldst thou have a serpent sting thee twice?"(MV4.1.68) might recall Juliet's "O serpent heart, hid with a flow'ring face!........Dove-feathered raven, wolvish-ravening lamb"(ROM3.2.73-6) . In turn, Gratiano echoes Juliet: "for thy desires / Are wolvish, bloody, starved and ravenous"(MV4.1.137). As the author suggests that Portia's father and a woman named Leah have passed on to eternity, Antonio and Shylock are possibly each grieving both losses.

[Danik 2016]

Is Leah Shylock´s deceased wife?

Portia´s father died, as we know, before the play started. It is not clear if Antonio knew him personally.

[stanley2]

All that we know about Leah is the 3 or 4 lines quoted in post #96. Hawkman wrote, "Shylock's wife perhaps?" Charles D wrote, "who I can only assume is his[Shylock's] wife." Professor Bate, reasonably, argues that there is no other reasonable inference. Back to the matter of Marlowe, Professor Parrott wrote in his general introduction: "In short, one feels in reading RICHARD 2 that the poet has graduated from the school of Marlowe and is now his own master." R2 was written about 1595, two years after the death of Marlowe, that "school" was by then closed. One might then suggest that Shakespeare was sad that such a talented rival was gone: "and it shall go hard, but I will better the instruction"(MV3.1.61). Some have suggested that RICHARD 3(written before R2) was in part Shakespeare's response to Marlowe's THE JEW OF MALTA. Parrott wrote, "like Marlowe's HERO AND LEANDER, which Shakespeare must have read in manuscript, VENUS AND ADONIS is a narrative poem(written in 1593).

[Danik 2016]

She probably is. But would she have known Antonio? Shylock would hardly have taken him home. I quite agree with Professor Bate that there is not much that can be said about her.

I believe that Shakespeare had read or, maybe,even watched some of Marlowe´s plays and that he was influenced by them.

[stanley2]

Indeed, Antonio may know less than the audience about Leah. We learn more about Lancelet the clown's mother: "Her name is Margery indeed. I'll be sworn, if thou be Lancelet, thou art mine own flesh and blood"(MV2.2.85-6). This last line is echoed in Act 3, scene 1: "I say my daughter is my flesh and my blood"(MV3.1.33). The next line, Salerio's "There is more difference between thy flesh and hers than between jet and ivory," corresponds to black and white images in R&J. On the way to Belmont, Salerio met Lorenzo and Jessica and invited them to join him: "I did my lord, / And I have reason for it. Signior Antonio / Commends him to you"(MV3.2.229-31). And as Professor Parrott wrote: "Portia herself is, of course, the most delightful character of the play. She is one of Shakespeare's ideal women, a lady of the Renaissance, beautiful, prudent, cultured and courteous." The added implication that Shylock and Antonio are both grieving the loss of Leah may have been intended to please the Queen.

[Danik 2016]

I like Professor Parrott´s comment on Portia.

But I insist: I don´t think Antonio was grieving the loss of Leah. Even if he knew her, he would hardly have fallen in love with her.

[stanley2]

Roger Tory Peterson wrote: "caution should be the keynote." A good thought in many circumstances. Professor Garber, I think, noted that Shylock tells us in Act 1, scene 3 that Tubal will supply the funds to furnish Bassanio's adventure. In Act 3, scene 1, we meet a character named Tubal(Someone pointed out that there may be two Salerio's!). In this thread we find Professor Greenblatt's notes regarding the good news/bad news nature of Tubal's report. One will then note the Nurse's reports to Juliet in R&J: "What storm is this that blows so contrary?"(ROM3.2.64). It seems, then, that Tubal is as generous towards Shylock as Antonio is to Bassanio. Tubal's line, "Yes, other men have ill luck too. Antonio as I heard in Genoa"(MV3.1.84), corresponds to Duke Senior's: "Thou seest we are not all alone unhappy. / This wide and universal theatre / Presents more woeful pageants than the scene / Wherein we play"(AS YOU LIKE IT2.7.135-9). Is Tubal a gay fellow or is he simply a Neoplatonic natural philosopher?

[stanley2]

Another cause of Antonio's sadness is suggested by Lancelet the clown and Professor Parrott. Parrott notes that he is "an idealist, overshadowed, like most of Shakespeare's men of thought, with a cloud of melancholy." Lancelet tells us: "My conscience says, 'No; take heed, honest Lancelet, take heed, honest Gobbo', or, as aforesaid, 'Honest Lancelet Gobbo, do not run, scorn running with thy heels'"(MV2.2.5-7). Therefore, Antonio is sad because his own conscience is telling him that his behavior towards Shylock is bad form.

[Danik 2016]

"Is Tubal a gay fellow or is he simply a Neoplatonic natural philosopher?"
I think Tubal is simply another Jewish merchant and Shylocks friend.
Yes, I think Antonio could be called an idealist.
The problem I see when one interprets every line of a play is losing sight of the whole picture. A certain interpretation may be right, if you take the line isolately, but not in regard to the play as a whole.

[stanley2]

In the film THE FRENCH CONNECTION, the mechanic says to the detective: " We've looked everywhere[for the illegal addictive drug] except the rocker panels." Gene Hackman(as the detective) says, "Then take apart the[expletive deleted] rocker panels." I think we've noted some possible causes of Antonio's grief. One remaining is that he is losing Portia by her marriage to Bassanio.

[Danik 2016]

I haven´t seen this film. If I understand you right, the idea is that the interpretation is in the detail.
So far ok. But now you are suggesting that Antonio might have been in love with Portia?

[stanley2]

The end of MACBETH, or the Scottish play, is useful here: "We shall not spend a large expense of time / Before we reckon with your several loves"(MAC5.9.26-7). Therefore, Antonio may then have, like the narrator of the Sonnets, "Two loves." Shakespeare wrote this play such that these various possibilities are each implicit.

[Danik 2016]

I should say Bassanio and some of his ships should be loss enough for Antonio!

[stanley2]

Let 's take an air guitar break. I just watched on Youtube the "Stones" performing JUST MY IMAGINATION, a popular song from 1971 by Norman Whitfield and Barret Strong. Mick Jagger sings "But in reality, she doesn't [expletive deleted] know me!" Therefore, it's not necessary that Antonio know Leah, it's just his imagination.

[Danik 2016]

To be sure! Poor Shakespeare!
Anyway I hope you enjoyed the music.

[stanley2]

There's a fine essay by Professor Pequigney about the Antonio character in TWELFTH NIGHT, that is, how similar he is to Antonio in MV. Professor Bate says of the second Antonio: "He is rewarded for his devotion by being left alone and melancholy, again in the exact manner of a sonnet writer turned away by his frosty mistress." Of course, Viola is disguised as a young man and Olivia loves her. In the end, Olivia marries Viola's twin brother. Therefore, the second Antonio could follow her example and find himself devoted to someone of the other gender.

[Danik 2016]

I get your point. But this second Antonio is a minor character in the play. His function is just to save and accompany Sebastian. Remember that there is another Shakespearean Antonio, the Marc Anton of "Julius Cesar" and "Antonius and Cleopatra" who doesn´t efface himself.

By the way, where do you get all those Professors. Some of them have very curious names.

[stanley2]

Thanks for reminding me that I misspelled the name of one of the Professors, and I have been quoting Professor Thomas Marc Parrott's textbook more, perhaps, than I should. All that I know about A&C is that Antony is "A lover, that kills himself most gallant for love"(MND1.2.20). A certain Professor did also recommend it.

[Danik 2016]

I did not intend to remind you of any misspelling, stanley, as I have no idea who these Professors are and how their names are spelled. I just got the idea that you were a student of Literature because you often referred to them.

[stanley2]

And did you intend to refer to Mary Sidney? We find that her version of the A&C story is titled ANTONIUS. She is certainly an interesting person to read about, three years older than Shakespeare. And speaking of titles or names, after I first read Prince Hamlet's lines, "I am but mad north-north-west; when the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw"(HAM2.2.173-4), I can't help but associate the Alfred Hitchcock movie NORTH BY NORTHWEST and Shakespeare.

[Danik 2016]

No, I never heard about her, thanks for calling my attention to that interesting Renaissance woman. I`ll see if I find the play "Antonius" that is said to influence Shakespeare. Here is her wiki, to start with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sidney

[stanley2]

In the court scene, Bassanio says: "Good cheer, Antonio! What, man, courage yet! / The Jew shall have my flesh, blood, bones and all / Ere thou shalt lose for me one drop of blood"(MV4.1.113-14). In Act 1, scene 2, Nerissa says: "Do you not remember, lady, in your father's time, a Venetian, a scholar and a soldier, that came hither in company of the Marquis of Montferrat?"(MV1.2.97-9). Therefore, when Portia says "Tarry a little, there is something else," Shylock is patiently waiting for Bassanio to step aside, they are face to face. The one is married to Portia, the other is, it seems, grieving the loss of his own wife. And thus, again, we may both be in the ballpark.

[Danik 2016]

Hi, stanley
I´m just getting a bit dizzy with all that unexpected pairing. You are not pairing Shylock with Nerissa, are you?

[stanley2]

An interesting question. Bassanio says to Gratiano: "But hear thee, Gratiano, / Thou art too wild, too rude and bold of voice"(MV2.2.173). This is comparable to the Duke's "stony adversary" speech(MV4.1.4). Therefore, perhaps, Shylock and Gratiano are each Nerissa's kind of guy. The dizziness you note may be in part caused by the subject matter of the play. As Hawkman put it, the author is dealing with the "contemporary climate of suspicion and hate regarding 'otherness'- whether Catholic or Jewish." And the first Shakespeare play I read was MND at age 14 for school. This may be why the simple answer regarding Antonio's melancholy for me is "the death of a dear friend"(MND5.1.284). Therefore, if Antonio is gay, he may have been a lover of Portia's late father.

[stanley2]

Sonnet 130 is recommended at the other Sonnet threads. We read there: "I grant I never saw a goddess go, / My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground." The scholar at the Shakespeare-sonnets site tells us: "Literature abounds with incidents of intervention in human affairs by various deities. Odysseus for example is often surprised when Athena disguises herself as a maiden and only reveals herself to him as she leaves." Therefore, Bassanio's last lines in MV, "Sweet doctor, you shall be my bedfellow. / When I am absent, then lie with my wife"(MV5.1.300-1), are consistent with the conclusion of the ODYSSEY: "Though still she kept the form and voice of Mentor"(Fitzgerald's translation). I had thought that Antonio, Shylock or both("But here's the joy; my friend and I are one," Sonnet 42) were intended by the author to be identified with Odysseus.

[stanley2]

I caught a performance of late actor Brian Bedford's one man Shakespeare show titled "The Lunatic, the Lover and the Poet." Such a show by a major leaguer, would, I'm sure, relieve dizziness. In sonnet 147 we find "My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are, / At random from the truth vainly express'd; / For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, / Who art as black as hell, as dark as night." Certainly one might compare "madmen's" and "The lunatic"(as found in MND). The conclusion also might recall Juliet's "O serpent heart, hid with a flow'ring face!" and "Dove-feathered raven"(ROM3.2.75-8). Therefore, Shylock's question, "What, wouldst thou have a serpent sting thee twice?"(MV4.1.69), identifies Antonio and Romeo without denying the possibility that Antonio may be gay. As Juliet changes her mind a bit regarding Romeo, so too may Antonio have felt various passions.

[Danik 2016]

I think you are right there. Passions often appear in Shakespeare as inconstant, that is, maybe, why the constant ones are so deeply valued.

[stanley2]

Post #100 and others point the way back to Shylock's "and no satisfaction, no revenge, nor no ill luck stirring but what lights o'my shoulders, no sighs but o'my breathing, no tears but o'my shedding" and Tubal's reply: "Yes, and other men have ill luck too. Antonio, as I heard in Genoa"(MV3.1.81-85). We then recall Juliet's conversation with the Nurse: "Tybalt's death was woe enough if it had ended there: Or if sour woe delights in fellowship / And needly will be ranked with other griefs....."(R&J3.2.119-21). Juliet instructs the Nurse to "Give this ring to my true knight, / And bid him come to take his last farewell"(3.2.146-7), and Shylock exclaims "It was my turquoise, I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor"(MV3.1.107). And in due course, Jew rhymes with Montague.

[stanley2]

In her book for young people, Marchette Chute wrote that "THE MERCHANT OF VENICE is a romantic comedy, but of a most unusual kind." Here, Drkshadow and others suggest, cogently, that Ms. Chute "is still deceived with ornament"(MV3.2.74). That is, the play is chiefly conventional. On the other hand, Lokasenna noted the famous line from KING LEAR: "The quandry is to decide whether.....he is 'more sinned against than sinning.'" Hawkman, Gladys, Ms. Slop(post #142) and others suggest that Shylock and Antonio are co-villains, and rightly so.

[stanley2]

The play ends with the lines from Gratiano: "Well, while I live I'll fear no other thing / So sore as keeping safe Nerissa's ring." In the last scene of R&J, Romeo asks: "Ah, dear Juliet, / Why art thou yet so fair? Shall I believe / That unsubstantial Death is amorous, / And that the lean abhorred monster keeps / Thee here in dark to be his paramour? / For fear of that I will stay with thee"(ROM5.3.101-106). Bevington glosses Gratiano's lines "with sexual suggestion." Therefore, the author concludes the play with the suggestion that Shylock is in a fantastical, rhetorical and poetical sense, defending his honorable wife from that lusty gentleman Antonio.

[stanley2]

There are other echoes of MV in AS YOU LIKE IT. "Which of the two was daughter of the Duke / That here was at the wrestling?..........Neither his daughter, if we judge by manners"(AYL1.2.258-60) recalls Jessica's "But though I am a daughter to his blood, / I am not to his manners"(MV2.3.17-18). Rosalind's first line disguised as a young man, "O Jupiter, how weary are my spirits"(AYL2.4.1) recalls Portia's first line in MV: "By my troth, Nerissa, my little body is aweary of this great world"(MV1.2.1). There are two comic villains in AS YOU LIKE IT, the younger brother of Duke Senior and the older brother of Orlando(adding Charles to the list is optional, I think). Therefore, it is plainly reasonable to regard Antonio as a second villain in MV. And of course scholars tell us that, in AS YOU LIKE IT, the author refers to the work of Marlowe and also his death, something Shakespeare clearly would like us all to avoid.

[stanley2]

In keeping with the above, we note Romeo's exclamation: "O mischief, thou art swift / To enter in the thoughts of desperate men!"(R&J5.1.35-6). Prendrelemick(#56) wrote "Notice at the end of the trial when his Jewishness is torn from him there is not much man left either." Hawkman replied: "Well to be honest, there's not much man left in Antonio when he's stripped of his wealth........He'd rather die than be poor." I do believe it in part. We have further seen that the author identifies the passion of each with Romeo, though as we've also seen, they may be grieving the loss of Portia's father.

[stanley2]

Mr. prendrelemik continues: "Shakespeare has written him in that way, and goes further, to say he is acting the way he does because he is a Jew." As Danik might note, not directly. We might then note that as Professor Wilson suggested, R&J was fresh in the minds of the audience when MV was first performed. Thus it is that in the former there are several violent deaths and in the latter we find Shylock presenting his case before a formal court: "Some men there are love not a gaping pig; / Some that are mad if they behold a cat; / And others, when the bagpipe sings i'th' nose......."(MV4.1.46-8). These particular lines echo lines from Solanio in the first scene: "Now, by two-headed Janus / Nature hath fram'd strange fellows in her time; / Some that will evermore peep through their eyes / And laugh like parrots at a bagpiper / And other of such vinegar aspect........(MV1.1.50-54). Of course when Shylock is finished, Bassanio replies: "This is no answer, thou unfeeling man"(MV4.1.62). And Shylock's "I am a Jew" in Act 3, scene 1 is as the late Joseph Papp called such lines, one of the play's "show stoppers." These last two quotes may help explain Mr. prendrelemick's comment. As I have documented, this last quote plainly corresponds to Juliet's line "What's Montague?"(R&J2.2.40). And thus Antonio and Shylock are "strange fellows."

[Danik 2016]

"Mr. prendrelemik continues: "Shakespeare has written him in that way, and goes further, to say he is acting the way he does because he is a Jew." As Danik might note, not directly."

I´m not sure if Danik would have noted that :D but never mind. And it would be good to have some news of prendrelemik.

But I like the part where Shylock explains himself for it is where Shakespeare permits him to explain his own point of view.

[stanley2]

The lines from Antonio, "I pray you, think you question with the Jew. / You may as well go stand upon the beach......"(MV4.1.70-73), may also have been what prendrelemick had in mind. As we have seen, the lines also echo some from Romeo Montague. For his introduction, Professor Halio wrote: "THE MERCHANT OF VENICE is studded with both classical and biblical allusions, though how many were deliberately intended or unconsciously woven into the fabric of the dialogue is uncertain.......Some, of course, cannot be mistaken or missed.......Others may be more subtle, involving satirical or other purposes. But all of them extend the play's dimensions." Much the same may be said of allusions to ROMEO AND JULIET and the Sonnets. Therefore, when Shylock says "But more for that in low simplicity / He lends out money gratis"(MV1.3.39-40), the reader may recall Sonnet 66: "Tir'd with all these, for restful death I cry.........And simple truth miscall'd simplicity." This adds to the list of answers regarding why Shylock acts the way he does.

[stanley2]

In post #102, mona amon noted Solanio's mimicry of Shylock: "It's difficult to explain why one finds something funny, but I did laugh at the 'My daughter! O, my ducats! O, my daughter! / Fled with a Christian! O, my Christian ducats!'"(MV2.8.15-16). There's something incongruous about the phrase "Christian ducats." Solanio's "laugh like parrots" from the first scene is useful here as some parrots are capable of mimicking human speech. If Shylock is a dog, then Solanio is a parrot. In Act 3, scene 5 we find Lorenzo's "I think the best grace of wit will shortly turn into silence, and discourse grow commendable in none only but parrots"(MV3.5.40-3).

[stanley2]

Charles D. and Drkshadow03 note Shylock's much noted speech in Act 3, scene 1. The speech is prompted by Salerio's "Why, I am sure if he forfeit, thou wilt not take his flesh. What's that good for?"(MV3.1.46-7). In turn, Salerio is responding to Shylock's "There I have another bad match:...............let him look to his bond." This is his reply to "There is more difference between thy flesh and hers than between jet and ivory, more between your bloods than there is between red wine and Rhenish. But tell us, do you hear whether Antonio have had any loss at sea or no?" Editors have various opinions regarding the "Salads." All agree, though, that the two characters that Shylock speaks to here are the same two that Antonio speaks with in the first scene of the play. As I have documented, Salerio's "difference" speech corresponds to three images in R&J that in turn correspond to the black and white picture representing Chinese dualistic philosophy. At any rate, these two characters, then, indicate some semblance regarding Antonio and Shylock. They are each comic villains.

[stanley2]

" Before you know it the general consensus is that no one should subject school children to this 'without context,'" wrote kiki1982. I do recall in high school one of the guys carrying a copy of this play when I was reading JULIUS CAESAR and that the same fellow had a copy of R&J the year before when I was reading MND. It seems that context has been regarded as important for some time. Even in Shakespeare's time successful writers, I should think, were rarely killed with daggers. Therefore, when Shylock says "Thou stick'st a dagger in me"(MV3.1.103), many in the audience in 1597 or so would have recalled the reports of Marlowe's death, though Shylock's speech is hyperbole, a figure of speech, an idiom and a literary device. YesNo quoted Greenblatt's comment on the dialogue between Shylock and Tubal: "This is the stuff of comedy, and it is certainly possible to play the scene for laughs." YesNo goes on to ask "How do you 'play the scene for laughs' given what happens to Shylock in the end unless the laughter originates from an underlying antisemitism?" If we also recall the lines from Juliet(see the recent post above #236), you most likely do not. If Antonio is noted as a second comic villain, as we see in AS YOU LIKE IT, one might laugh here and there, I suppose. If R&J is fresh in the minds of the audience, Nick Bottom tells us what to expect: "That will ask some tears in the true performing of it. If I do it, let the audience look to their eyes"(MND1.2.27-8).

[Danik 2016]

Hi,
I'm just putting up these links about these courses that might interest you, Stanley, and other litnetters. They are free on line Harward courses about The Merchant of Venice and Shakespeare. One has to pau for the Certificate though, if one wants one:
https://www.edx.org/course/shakespeares-merchant-of-venice-shylock
https://www.edx.org/course/shakespeares-life-and-work
https://www.edx.org/course/shakespeares-othello-the-moor

[stanley2]

Thanks for the suggestion. While considering the matter, I came across another Greenblatt book, THE SWERVE. Looks interesting. The "course," in another sense, that we're on here was set by the late critic John Gross in his 1994 book about Shylock: "I personally think it is absurd to suppose that there is a direct line of descent from Antonio to Hitler or Portia to the SS, but that is because I do not believe that the Holocaust was in any way inevitable." Here in the U.S., with the passing of Justice Ginsburg, we are reminded of the tribute she wrote when Justice Scalia passed on to eternity. The conclusion reads "It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend." Their determinations as Justices were often in opposition, and the one was Jewish and the other Roman Catholic Italian-American. This is something like what I've been carefully documenting in Shakespeare's play. In AS YOU LIKE IT, the two comic villains are reforming themselves late in the play. Back in the court scene in MV, we find Bassanio's question again: "Why dost thou whet thy knife so earnestly?"(MV4.1.120). When Portia turns things around, then, part of the tension is the question of whether Shylock will meet the same fate as Christopher Marlowe. Back in ROMEO AND JULIET we find Romeo also threatening: " O, tell me, Friar, tell me, / In what vile part of this anatomy / Doth my name lodge? Tell me that I may sack / The hateful mansion"(ROM3.3.104-6). It is interesting that in the First Quarto is a stage direction: "He offers to stab himself, and Nurse snatches the dagger away."

[Danik 2016]

"Here in the U.S., with the passing of Justice Ginsburg, we are reminded of the tribute she wrote when Justice Scalia passed on to eternity. The conclusion reads "It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend." Their determinations as Justices were often in opposition, and the one was Jewish and the other Roman Catholic Italian-American."
More than any relation to MV I liked you mention of this tribute.

[stanley2]

Mr. Lake's notes, "Shakespeare is playing on racial stereotypes for laughs.........all comic writers play on one stereotype or another," are good regarding one side of the ducat. On the other hand, when the Duke says "Upon my power I may dismiss this court, / Unless Bellario, a learned doctor / Whom I have sent for to determine this, / Come here today"(MV4.1.103-6), part of the original context is Romeo's "This shall determine that"(ROM3.1.131), where Romeo is speaking of his sword. Of the play onstage Professor Halio wrote: "Unfortunately, scant information on THE MERCHANT OF VENICE as performed in Shakespeare's era has come down to us. The first known record of any performance appears on the title page of the first quarto(1600)." We do know that the author worked with a troupe of players. It is then possible that the actor who played the Prince in R&J may have played the Duke in MV. It is also thought that the leading actor in the company played Shylock and a young man played Portia. Richard Burbage went on to play Hamlet. Shakespeare himself may have played Antonio, or Bassanio. Imagine the "sweet swan of Avon" saying "When I told you / My state was nothing, I should have told you / That I was worse than nothing"(MV3.2.256-8).