Is The Merchant of Venice anti-Semitic?

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.

Quote:

---

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

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:

If anyone is interested, here is the story for Il Pecorone that most of Merchant is based off of: http://merchantofvenice.weebly.com/u...l_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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkman

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.

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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."

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

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/for...ad.php?t=68547

---

I also say it again here:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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/for...hlight=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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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.

[QUOTE=Drkshadow03;1132525]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:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?"

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

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/for...58#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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.