I wonder if anyone can see the devout Jew's 'error'
SHYLOCK. Yes, to smell pork, to eat of the habitation which your
prophet, the Nazarite, conjured the devil into!
TMOV a1 s3
I am surprised this has never been remarked on before.
Printable View
I wonder if anyone can see the devout Jew's 'error'
SHYLOCK. Yes, to smell pork, to eat of the habitation which your
prophet, the Nazarite, conjured the devil into!
TMOV a1 s3
I am surprised this has never been remarked on before.
If you're trying to imply that Shylock is saying Jesus ate pork I think you're mistaken. He's referring to a tale that Jesus cast devils into a herd of swine. Mark 5:1-13
No, not at all. I was thinking more on the lines of the word Shylock uses: Nazarite. I thought John the Baptist was one, and perhaps St Paul, but not Jesus. The title 'Jesus of Nazareth' in Latin is 'Iesv Nazarene' meaning 'Jesus (of) Nazareth'. The most famous OT Nazarite was hairy Samson, in the Book of Judges, and there we can read all that stuff about his famous seven locks, but devout Shylock seems to have got it wrong. Funny really, his name, like Samson, begins with S, and it even has a lock, like on Samson's head, and yet Shylock seems to have got it wrong.
Thanks for the comment
Perhaps this is Shakespeare's error and not Shylock's.
I love how people are always quick to cry antisemitism when this comment is in plain-view for all to read...
Edit, post got duplicated somehow.
Scholars have remarked on it, Jesus was a Nazarene, but this distinction only entered English usage with the publication of the King James Bible in 1611, before then Nazarite was used for both groups of people by English speakers, and for sometimes after the terms continued to be used interchangeably.
It's not the Nazarene part, it's the pork part.
What about the pork part?Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
The OP was about a perceived error in Shylock's knowledge of the Bible, however the discrepancy is due to a semantic change. I'm not certain what you think these lines demonstrates about antisemitism. Shylock is sneering at Antonio's invitation to dinner. Pork/hogs/pigs are referenced in several parts of the text probably because it was one of the few religious practices of Judaism that Elizabethan Christians were really familiar with.
I'm talking about the sneers Shylock makes at Christianity since pork is okay to eat for Christians but not for Jews. I'm not talking about antisemitism besides the fact that people more often than not say this play is antisemitic, that's all. Shylock is only a Jew nominally, anyway. He is a hypocrite, if nothing else. It's just kind of funny how people think Shylock is some sort of oppressed victim, that's all.
And in reference to the OP's comments, it's not surprising at all if this were, in fact, Shylock's mistake and not Shakespeare's. Shylock doesn't even adhere to his own religion, so why should he know anything about Christianity? I didn't even notice that bit, actually. I was assuming the OP wanted us to notice the offensive comment Shylock made that's often overlooked.
Shylock makes another little "mistake." He says in Act 1, scene 3 "When Jacob grazed his uncle Laban's sheep--this Jacob from our holy Abram was, as his wise mother wrought in his behalf. the third possessor;ay, he was the third--"
He says Abram, and not Abraham. Interesting.
They aren't errors though, it's a semantic difference. A separate word in English to distinguish the Nazarene from the Nazarites was not in use until a few decades later, and Nazarite was the standard term for Nazarenes until that point. As for Abram, it is Abraham's original name and it fits an iambic meter.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
I know they're not errors. They're completely intentional. But notice how Shylock, being a Jew and all, calls Abraham (which is what he should refer to him as) Abram instead. God renamed Abram Abraham when he made the sign of the covenant with him, thus Judaism is born.
But if he called Abraham it would introduce an awkward trochi into the meter of the line. I simply think it is a misreading to think this implies an error on Shylock's part rather than just a conventional use of language that any contemporary viewer would not have viewed as a mistake. Moreover, I think it likely that the two versions of the name would have been viewed interchangeably, as in Romeo and Juliet where the servant Abram is also called Abraham at a few points.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
I don't think it is just about meter. Shakespeare could have worded it differently then, if he wanted to. Calling Abraham Abram seems too intentional on Shylock's part, especially since he is not adherent to his faith. Think about Abram as pagan, and Abraham as monotheistic. Shylock is most certainly a pagan. He puts his faith in material things, such as his money. Boy, does he love his money.
And maybe "Abram" just also happened to conveniently fit in with the meter? But "Abram" coming from Shylock doesn't surprise me one bit. Abram didn't have to adhere to God, but Abraham did.
Abram was not pagan though, it is not specified when Abram started to believe in God but Genesis makes it clear he was following God's directives for several years before he received the name of Abraham, which only follows the covenant of circumcision and is about him becoming the patriarch of Israel, the chosen people of God. Whether it seems intentional does not really address whether Abram/Abraham were not commonly considered interchangeable during the period, such as the example from Romeo and Juliet suggests. Certainly Shylock is overly concerned with material things, but that is common of an Early Modern antisemitic caricature, Jews were thought of as scholastically pedantic about scripture but not spiritually involved. Shylock is not ignorant of scripture, but his interpretation of Jacob's parable would have probably been recognized as a perversion of the meaning, Antonio provides a reading that Jacob prospered by the grace of God, while Shylock says he prospered through his cunning.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
2 And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Your fathers lived of old beyond the Euphra′tes, Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and they served other gods.
He grew up in a pagan nation, and God hadn't revealed himself yet.
Yet, Abram receives instructions from God and builds temples dedicated to His worship years before he becomes Abraham, so I see no reason to associate the name Abram with paganism.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
What I am saying though is that that is before the promise. Abraham was most likely pagan though before those several years. Abraham knew God only when he was 75 years old. That's kind of a long time. Almost all his life went by already before knowing who God is.
How can Abram be pagan if he was already worshipping the true God? God changed Abram's name to Abraham only when he was 99 years old (Genesis chapter 17).
And the line quoted, actually indicates Abraham was not pagan, as it clearly avoind claiming Abraham was one of the pagans but mentions his father (which goes well, as Abraham did had trouble with his father idolatry). It more than anything confirms Pip's.
Before being renamed Abraham, Abram was not bound to any promise. A covenant is an unbreakable bond between God and man. Shylock acts as if he is not bound by any promise to his proclaimed faith in God through his manipulation, usury, and hatred. Shylock recognizes Abraham before this promise, and not after it. I am not trying to compare Abraham and Shylock as if they're the same person. I am just trying to take into consideration the accountability of faith before God.
Maybe I'm blowing things out of proportion, but it is something to think about. If Shylock were a faithful Jew, that would be a different story, but he's not. He's absolutely hypocritical.