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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Printable View
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
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.
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/th...ted=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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
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.
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 . . . at least I'm not. Knowing the members of these forums, I doubt anyone else feels differently.
Good. It's just that Yes/No said there were other problems with the play.
No, these truths should not be buried and a play is a good way to show them. I hope your play is successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
That is an interesting question. What if Shakespeare had written The Merchant of Venice now instead of over 400 years ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
a work of contemporary fiction set in an historical context? Then you might get an uproar!
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.
What if the story was contemporary as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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."
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.
oops again
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.
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."
"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.
:yikes:
Edit: Oh sorry. Something in my eye.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley2
Who used it before Shakespeare?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
YesNo
You make a fair point.