We are doing a project for my Shakespeare class, and the question is basically, "Does The Merchant of Venice's portrayal of Shylock constitute anti-semitism?"
Printable View
We are doing a project for my Shakespeare class, and the question is basically, "Does The Merchant of Venice's portrayal of Shylock constitute anti-semitism?"
Yes, in your culture, you are forbidden to make them villains. They are hero only. And no, that is not equality. That is a form of race supremacy, special elite privilege based on ancestry.
QC
On the face of it "yes," but then remember the prejudices that were still prevalent in Shakespeare's time. And yet The Bard seems to transcend this in aspects of the character of Shylock and I actually have sympathy with him. After all, a deal's a deal!
JC
Dear, dear. You really need help.
Regards
M.
Why would I need help? A famous Italian American said recently, when the folk music of his people is played, everyone around believes a MOBSTER GANGSTER CRIME FAMILY EVENT is happening. Ethnic hating Italians is entirely fine. It is a genre. In the Star Wars cartoon, they made a GERMAN ALIEN. A German Alien? Yes, they needed a chemical bio attack villain, so they made the Alien German accent. It is totally ok to ethnic hate Germans. In Israeli culture, you have three options: 1) Silence. 2) Flattery. 3) Be an anti-Semite. Shylock does not flatter their ethnicity = it is anti-Semite.
Bear in mind, I am the one arguing FOR equality. My side is, everyone gets equal rules equally and equal treatment.
Your side is: Italians, Germans, Blacks, various other groups SHOULD BE stereotype ethnic villains. But then other groups should get special rules where they never get bashed.
FACT: What do you call a homosexual pedophile? You call them a heterosexual pedophile. They have protected rights. They can't be villains.
In Western Civilization, some peoples get one treatment, other people get the opposite.
I hope you recover your race hate soon.
I prefer everyone getting equal opportunity.
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.
Dear Charles
Thank you. A very interesting and balanced reply.
JC
1.In your initial response to QueCubed you talk about “in your culture.” How do you know what his/her culture is?
2.In your response to myself you refer to, “Your side is” and then break into some broad generalization that I have a preference for one racial group over a broad spectrum of others. You are ahead of yourself.
3.As for the bit about the “three options in Israeli culture,” it is about as simplistic and limited an assumption as one could possibly make, when one is in a sober state of enlightment.
Regards
M.
He asked in English.
That is how I know what his culture is.
You are not very good at this.
Oh wait, this is you,
English is this thing called a language. There are others.
You should look up the topic. We have a whole planet and everything.
I was in china once and I met this man who spoke English. The strange thing was that he had never been out of China! Isn't that so bizarre?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamCrackers
Seriously though...what?
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?"
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamCrackers
Please don't play stupid. You can do it fine naturally. Since you demanded me to explain it, I shall. DICTIONARY: Homosexual: having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex. What sex is a man? Male. What sex is a boy? Male. Sexual attraction male to male is homosexuality? Yes. Priests who attack boys are homosexuals? Yes. Priests who attack boys are pedophiles? Yes. Does Western society go around complaining about the epidemic of homosexuals attack boys in pedophile assaults? No, they do not. No one makes bad jokes about priests attacking GIRLS now do they? No, they don't. It is a predatory homosexual behavior. We just never call it that because in our society, people with elite rights never get to be villains. Only people with second class rights are villains. Christian is second class: YES, you can be called a Christian Pedophile. NO, you can't be called a homosexual pedophile.
I do understand where my opponents are coming from. Western society is entirely hypocritical. Everything a Westerner says is a lie in reverse. If a Westerner wants to stop bullying? He will bully you to stop. If they want to stop hate, they will hate you because 'you deserve it.' In my society, you never ever need to tell anyone what your sex is, what your race is, what your religion is. In my society, you are just a human, with exactly the same rights as another human. The question is: is Shylock anti-Semite? Yes it is. Why? Because Judaism is in the protected class. Being hypocrites as I said, what will I be told? I will be told they are not in a protected class, but - they are - and I must be punished for breaking that rule. I said something, anything, that was not pure flattery, thus I am filled with hate. Feel Free: what is it 500 years? Nice. You can use the entire Earth and the last 500 years. Think on that 500 years. Name every Jewish villain ever put in fiction in the last 500 years anywhere on Earth. Before you lie that you won't because it would take too long, I am telling you in advance I know you are lying. You can't make the list, because it will make you lose the debate. Who will you name? Blofeld from James Bond? All you can do is list a few exceptions that make the rule. There are enough German, Italian, or Black villains to fill a phone book. Yes, I said something not flattering so yes you are angry that it is anti-Semite to say anything not flattering. That is what I accused in the first place. Proving me right won't hurt that much.
What is it with this slew of new members recently coming on the boards and immediately taking to insulting long-term members and calling their intelligence into question without the faintest idea of who they are talking to, or how intelligent or educated that person might be. It strikes me as pre-pubescents gone on rampage. Too many Fruit Loops for breakfast?
Is Shylock an antisemitic character? Considering that he is but a single Jewish villain out of a rather sizable body of villains, I would suggest no. I would also suggest that Shakespeare's characters are almost always too complex to be reduced to a simple stereotype. At the same time... all artists are formed by the beliefs and values of their time and place. Elements that we would find antisemitic, sexist, racist, nationalistic, imperialistic would have been accepted as status quo for those in another time and place. What is necessary to remember is that we don't stand in high judgment of the "inferior" thinking of the past. Much that we accept would undoubtedly have been thought of as morally suspect by any number of past cultures, and much that we believe in or accept now will undoubtedly be looked upon with disdain by future generations.
This is one of the reasons that aesthetic judgment needs to be kept separate from judgment rooted in non-artistic considerations: morality, ethics, social, economic, or political considerations, etc... This is not to say that we should simply skim past those elements that raise questions... but we should place these moral issues within a historical context and question just how central they are to the work of art as a whole. Is making an antisemitic comment a central aspect of The Merchant of Venice? Or could the villain have just as likely have been Spanish, or Dutch, or French?
That's because the gender of the children isn't the problem. It's the CHILDREN part that's the problem. They aren't called "heterosexual" or "homosexual" pedophiles, they're just pedophiles. The crime is equally wrong whether the children are male or female. Also, there are many more female victims of statutory rape than there are male so clearly pedophelia isn't correlated to homosexuality. And homosexuals are elite? That's a new one. They aren't allowed to get married in most places, so they aren't even legally equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamCrackers
No, the children is not the problem. As an expert on history and human behavior, I can assure you that sex with children has been in practice since the Stone Age. In various cultures, it was common practice. I'm sure Ancient Rome did their share of it and it wasn't a crime. Why is this important? Because to a person who lives in reality and not politically correct fantasy land, we are talking about human behavior. What behavior? The orgasm. I assume you know what an orgasm is. Some like to argue rape is about 'hate' and not orgasms. I have never heard of the no-orgasm rapist, but I assume it could be possible, just utterly unlikely. Orgasm is the original human drug. It is pleasure. The human ape wants to ring his pleasure bell. The pedophile is a sexual predator, an orgasm predator if you will. It is about fantasy. It is about the term erotic. We agree that FANTASY EROTIC URGES that involve, dead people, children, rape, various bad things - are bad. They are things people should not do, but they do anyway. In terms of the human animal, what is the situation? A 'bad' human has fantasy erotic sexual urges directed toward their victim. In this specific case, these are MEN (males) who experience fantasy erotic urges toward BOYS (males). It is a homosexual pedophile urge. They DESIRE another male. They are males who desire interaction with a male body.
Are homosexuals elite? 100% yes.
If you murder a homosexual, it will be a 'hate crime'. You murdered an elite citizen and your punishment will be increased accordingly. If you are a homosexual pedophile, (you are the ideal expert to argue this), if you are a homosexual, a regular one for many years, the very moment you get arrested for raping a boy, the same second you get arrested, you are no longer homosexual. Were you homosexual for decades? Sure. Yep. And after police grab you raping a boy... POOF! you are no longer homosexual. But, why? Why all this trouble? Why do you care? Why is it an uphill battle to call homosexuals equal? That is what equal means. There are like anyone else. They can be a criminal like anyone else. They can be a homosexual bank robber, a homosexual terrorist, a homosexual drunk driver, and yes a homosexual pedophile. If you had the character to live in truth like I do, you could just admit the truth, which I know you do know. IT IS A SOCIAL THOUGHT CRIME IN YOUR CIVILIZATION TO MENTION THEIR TITLE IN ANY NEGATIVE FASHION, period. Ever. Not ever. If you EVER! say the word homosexual, you will say it in some flattering fashion, is some positive reaffirming way, or you are a hate thinker. Don't flatter yourself that you make any decisions in this world. YOU DON'T. People with power you don't have forced you to behave this way. No one ever has or will ask your opinion. YOU DON'T GET AN OPINION. You do what you are told, behave as you are told, or your mentally challenged buddies will outcast you as a hate heretic. Nothing we talk about will change that. Personally, my dream is you could grasp I am not waiting for your agreement. Do you really think I believe you are first regular Joe I have ever met who would be capable of shrugging off their social conformity? You have better odds of growing deer antlers out of your skull, than 'change'. No one changes. Me? I was trained from a young age to think for myself. That is why I stand alone speaking the obvious cruel reality of nature. That is why you defend the television culture who informed you what you think. What will you say? You wrote what they say on TV? No, you didn't. People not you made all these decisions. People not you decided that Merchant of Venice was 'anti-Semite' years ago. YOU DON'T GET AN OPINION. There have been college plays of it cancelled before. Class rooms have banned the book before. Elite Social Classes in your culture get 'hero only/victim only' treatment. They are never ever stereotype villains. Oh sure, you villain second class groups all the time, without shame. Second class humans don't get 'hate protection'. You can rip them to shreds.
Here I am, just say it about me: "JamCrackers, you are filled with hate, homophobia, and dozens of other insulting terms, because you said the name of a protected elite class in unflattering terms. Mention them as spectacular gifts, or mention them not at all."
Is Shakespeare anti-Semitic simply by reflecting, in his characters, the attitudes of typical Venetians to Jews?
Is his treatment of Shylock unsympathetic? I suspect the audience, even in Shakespeare's time, may feel some empathy for Shylock because the injustice Jews chronically experience is persuasively presented by Shylock himself. Shylock's final punishment seems disproportionate to his crime. And besides, Antonio is hardly a likeable character.
If antisemitism is defined as "hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity" as in http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/40258.htm, then I suspect it is antisemitic.
Even though there might be individual sympathy toward Shylock, although I can't remember any at the moment, the fact that he was described as Jewish helps to bring out the bigotry in the audience. Why didn't Shakespeare make Shylock a Christian? Or not mention Shylock's religion entirely?
The portrayal of Shylock is definitely anti-Semitic. He is portrayed in extremely stereotypical terms (greedy, blood-thirsty) that are staples of anti-Semitism. His Christian tormentors (which are the main characters of the play) are depicted as sympathetic throughout and it's only a modern audience that is going to be uncomfortable with the ending in which Shylock loses everything and is forcefully converted on pains of death.
Shakespeare might excel at portraying three-dimensional characters with complicated motivations, but in many of his plays it is pretty obvious who the villains of the piece are (Iago in Othello and Laertes in Hamlet for example). Shylock is definitely portrayed as the villain of the piece. Often people will point to Shylock's famous speech in Act 3 Scene 1, "Hath not a Jew eyes . . ." in which Shylock points out his common humanity and his reason for desire of revenge due to institutional persecution by Christians. Nevertheless, it's not a convincing argument that one single speech overturns what is otherwise a really stereotypical portrayal. Also, there seems to be other reasons for the speech. One, it is there more to give a motivation for Shylock's behavior than generate sympathy for him. Two, a reader can interpret his words in which he claims he learned revenge from Christian's getting revenge on Jews as a misreading of the Christian characters around him who ultimately show him what the audience most likely would've perceived as mercy in the end.
In Act 4, during the trial, the Duke pardons Shylock, purposefully depicting the supposed difference between Jewish strict observance of the law to the letter (wanting his pound of flesh as promised and then having that backfire when the court demands he follow it to the letter) and Christian mercy and forgiveness. In the end Shylock is forcefully converted to Christianity on pains of death. And as Gratiano states this is a mercy as it will lead him to life (symbolized by the "fount") instead of the death he believes Shylock deserves.
Shakespeare deliberately created Shylock so as to write about racial and religious prejudice, among other things. Is that unacceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Shakespeare was a playwright, not a self-sacrificing radical reformer risking all for societal change. I doubt we can say that his surpassing genius was oblivious to how a modern audience, or someone of similar persuasion, would interpret the play in respect to Shylock. And is the arrogant Antonio really depicted as sympathetic throughout?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
And any writer almost always has their own contemporary audience first and foremost in mind, which would've been Christian and one that didn't have much interaction with Jews since they had all been expelled from England (with the exception of a small group that came after they had been expelled from Spain). Shakespeare never could have known a Post-Holocaust generation would've developed a different relationship to anti-Semitism and the Enlightenment weakened the predominance of Christianity as a part of European society. Genius that he was, I don't think he could've foreseen either of those two events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
Shakespeare gives vices to his heroes (think Hamlet and Othello who make terrible and tragic mistakes), but that doesn't make them not the hero of those stories. Just as he gives complex and semi-justified reasons (at least in their own minds) to his villains as I already noted. This doesn't prevent them from being the villain, however.
The simple problem with your viewpoint Jam is that it has no bearing in reality.
There's a wonderful little breakdown of the research on pedophile's sexual orientation at UC Davis' website: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html
Most pedophiles are classified as fixated by psychologist, which is their term for a pedophile who can not have sexual relationships with adults and is only aroused by children. Some pedophiles are classed as regressive, which means they have sex with children sometimes but often they have sexual relations with adults. The thing is that there is no identified connection between the choice of gender of child they molest and the choice of adult partners.
So:
"Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that 'in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males...'"
" Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994)."
The use of adult sexual orientation categories, like heterosexual or homosexual to identify pedophiles is often done by Conservative groups, but it doesn't reflect the scientific evidence we have about pedophiles. The simple fact of the matter is that the object choice of pedophiles does not imply anything about an adult sexual orientation.
You yourself are trying to conflate pederastic relationships (which even in ancient Greece used to involve 14-16 year old boys) as pedophilia, but most psychologist would disagree that this involves any pathological sexual interest. It is morally wrong for an adult to engage sexually with a teenager for many reasons, but it's not the same thing as pedophilia.
Actually, Merchant, like most plays, are based on an earlier text. Merchant is taken from Il Pecorone, which focuses on Bassanio's (can't remember the character's name in Pecorone) quest to obtain Portia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
(Bassanio) has to borrow money from his benefactor, (Antonio) and in order to get the money, (Antonio) has to borrow money from a Jew.
So Shylock as Jew was established before Shakespeare got to the play. What Shakespeare does is 1. give the Jew a name and 2. greatly expand on his character.
So I guess today I read a post from someone who was pro-rape but anti-homosexuality. The sad thing is, I'm not even surprised.
Notwithstanding, Shakespeare deliberately fashioned Shylock - as we see him in The Merchant of Venice - so as to write about racial and religious prejudice. The issue here is: what has Shakespeare to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
I agree. Nevertheless, Shakespeare's audience is no more homogeneous than audiences today. An insightful few present at the Globe Theatre, and perhaps the playwright himself, may have held views on anti-Semitism even more enlightened than those of our post Holocaust generations. Atrocities against Jews goes back millennia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
My two cents, for what they are worth...
I think Shylock is a comedy Jew, of the type that a contemporary audience would have understood. I do, however, think that it is a testament to Shakespeare's craft, intended or otherwise, that he bestowed upon him such a deep and multi-faceted character that he can be viewed in a very sympathetic light (as opposed to, say, Barabas). The quandry is to decide whether, to borrow from another Shakespeare play, he is 'more sinned against than sinning.'
Culturally, it is hard for Westerners living in a post-Holocaust world to view Merchant as anything other than the tragedy of Shylock. I do, however, remeber reading an article in my undergrad days concerning performances of the play in the far east, where Shylock was universally portrayed as a malicious clown whose fall was considered by audiences both funny and entirely deserved. I think that says quite a lot about how our cultural background shapes our perceptions - could you imagine such a staging of it done in Israel?
For the record, I've seen versions that play up both the tragedy and comedy side of things, and I think both are relevant and acceptable interpretations.
You can better hope that JC doesn't find this thread...
I tend to agree with Lokasenna and someone else in that other thread who pointed out that Shylock's speech about also being human and bla-bla-bla is probably rather ironic and a bit pathetic than actually pity-inducing. It probably depends on how you deliver it and how his other speeches and comportment are interpreted. It is indeed difficult in post-Holocaust Europe to (be allowed to) view Shylock that way, but it is probably the most appropriate. I can imagine that the end of the play in the Duke of Venice's palace can produce such a pantomime-like moment where the audience could go 'boooo' and 'hear hear' and 'haha, you stupid Jew' as audiences did back then. Particularly the parterre where the common folk used to stand.
Someone in the other thread also pointed out that Shylock only appears a handful of times and that his last speech of 'my daughter, my ducats' was reported through someone else. And Jews had been banned entirely from England for a few 100 years by then. The audience only had the church's word for it that they were gangsters who poisoned wells.
The question is whether Shakespeare was not actually addressing the fact that, if the Jews were made the nasty villains because they wanted their money's worth, whether not Christians were to blame because of their greed. If you buy with what money you have, you do not need a Jew. If you want to buy more than what money you have, you do need one. And then you have to pay him back. If you agree to a deal that will essentially cut off a piece of you, then who is to blame? The Jew who proposes it or you yourself for agreeing to it? If Bassanio hadn't squandered his estate and wanted Portia for her money, and Antonio hadn't lent Bassanio money he didn't have and agreed to shedding a piece of himself if he could not pay, then nothing of the sort would have happened.
They of course all blame the Jew and get their way because they are in the majority, but is that just? And the fact that Shylock actually wishes to cut out Antonio's heart, is that not a symbol for the community voluntary giving up everything that is right and proper for money? Does the heart not contain the soul?
The question is whether Bassanio is not really after the gold rather than the lead, at the price of being dominated by his wife (or that is the impression I got) which is also quite shameful. The other two of Portia's suitors are maybe a bit foolish for assuming that the right caskets are the gold and the silver one and for wanting Portia as a wife because she is beautiful, but Bassanio leaves with the express purpose of getting Portia for her money as he has none left.
All that glitters is not gold, indeed.
So, yes, antisemitic, but I think that stamp is pretty irrelevant as people back then did not know any better (and what is 'better' anyway?).
Exactly. There is nothing wrong with interpreting the play as being more of a tragedy for Shylock, but it seems doubtful that the original audience viewed it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Gladys seems to have much more confidence in Shakespeare's enlightened attitudes than I do.
There's an element of scapegoating (Antonio vis-a-vis Shylock) which legitimizes the antisemitism claim, but that would be grossly simplifying Shakespeare's complex art. The pity Shakespeare is able to elicit on behalf of Shylock (the Jew) is possibly the first of its kind in Western literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by QueCubed
The question of whether The Merchant of Venice is an anti-Semitic play is often raised and it is not unreasonable to question the depiction of Shylock as stereotypical in that he is a Jewish moneylender. This would certainly have had resonance with a late medieval audience, who in England at least, would have been highly unlikely to have knowingly interacted with any Jews, since King Edward 1st’s edict of expulsion in 1289. Openly being a Jew in England would have been seriously hazardous thereafter, at least until Oliver Cromwell actively encouraged a formal return of Jews to the country in 1655.
That a long-standing tradition of anti-Semitism existed within the Christian world cannot be denied, however irrational it would seem, given the fact that Jesus was Jewish, as were most, if not all, of the original 12 disciples.
(Wikipedia)Quote:
At the time, the Christian community would have considered itself a part of the wider Jewish community, with most of the leaders of the Church being Jewish or Jewish proselytes.
In fact it was Paul who eventually decreed that it should not be necessary to be circumcised to become a Christian.
However, given the rise of Christianity to being the official adopted faith of the Roman Empire under Constantine, The might of Rome had to deflect the guilt of having executed Christ on the cross (after all, it was a Roman [Pilate] who condemned Jesus to crucifixion [a Roman method of execution], and Roman legionaries who performed the act) and so it became the position of the established church to condemn Jews as Christ killers and deniers of the coming of the Messiah.
By the time of the medieval period all manner of depictions of Jews as demons and devils were commonplace. Just about any outlandish rumour of Jewish religious practice would be believed, even that they would kidnap Christian children to sacrifice at Passover in order to use their blood to make matzah. Popular anti-Jewish feeling could easily erupt into violence; in 1190 more than a hundred Jews were massacred during the Copper Gate riots in York.
Legislation and Guild proscription effectively limited any gainful employment for Jews to moneylending, although there appears to be some disagreement between Bible, Talmud and subsequent rabbinical texts as to whether usury, the charging of interest on a loan, is permissible or not - either between Jews or by Jew to gentile.
However, given that there was little else available to Jews, moneylending certainly became a common occupation which was subsequently exploited and taxed by the Crown, at least until Longshanks expelled them.
In 1492, Jews were expelled from Spain and in 1497 from Portugal. A Substantial number of Sephardic Jews sought refuge in England, but, in order to remain, they had to be seen to be converts to Christianity, although in 1542 many were arrested on suspicion of being Jews.
The 16th Century saw a number of persons named Lopez immigrating to England from Portugal, having been driven from the country by the inquisition, and they may well have been members of the same family. One of the most prominent of these was one Rodrigo Lopez, a physician, who having been raised as a Roman Catholic conversos in Portugal was nevertheless believed to be a Marrano or hidden Jew. On arriving in London in 1559 he’d have been in a kind of double jeopardy as Roman Catholics would have been no more popular than Jews in Protestant England. Publicly protestant, he rose to some prominence in his profession and became physician to Elizabeth the First.
Bizarrely he became a victim of court politicking and was accused of being part of a Catholic conspiracy to assassinate the queen. Also accused of being a secret Jew he was eventually hanged in 1594, declaring on the scaffold that he loved the queen as he loved Jesus, at which the crowd laughed, taking it for a confession of guilt. Shakespeare may even have witnessed this.
So this is the background of popular attitude towards Jews in Shakespeare’s time. Now let us address the opening question of whether The Merchant of Venice, is, in fact, an anti-Semitic play.
Surely, if the play is overtly anti-Semitic, all Jews would be depicted as evil, mean, cruel and scheming, after all, Shylock is not the only Jewish character in the play. Is his daughter, Jessica depicted as anything other than a lovely young girl in love with a gentile? Well, she certainly complains of her father and she does convert willingly to Christianity in order to enjoy her union with Lorenzo, so perhaps she can’t be seen to be a very committed Jewess. There is another Jewish character, that of Tubal, a friend of Shylock’s against whom no complaint is made by any character.
But what of Shylock himself? He is undoubtedly anti-Christian, when Antonio and Shylock first come face to face in the play, Shylock tells the audience directly:
“How like a fawning publican he looks!
I hate him for he is Christian;”
But is Antonio hated just for being Christian? Shylock’s treatment at the hands of Antonio has been far from gentle. He has been given good reason to detest the man and it is entirely possible that Shylock’s view of Christians has been grievously coloured by his treatment by a man who is proclaimed a good Christian by all his friends and acquaintances. Bassanio’s glowing praise of his friend would be construed as borderline homosexual love in some quarters and by today’s standards. Although it is not Antonio who engages Shylock for the supplying of funds, but Bassanio, who needs money to pursue Portia, Antonio agrees to stand surety for the loan. Effectively he is going to someone whom he has publicly insulted and assaulted, whose business practices he has denounced and personally undermined, and effectively says, “You dog, give my friend some money, I’ll cover him, I’m good for it.” Antonio is no more loving of Jews than Shylock is of Christians.
The arrogance (and stupidity) of the man is staggering! In the opening scene, Antonio is clearly depicted as a cautious man who doesn’t put all his eggs in one basket; he has ventured his fortune divided between several ships, yet now he agrees to put his life at hazard for a mere three thousand ducats because his friend has the hots for Portia. What a twit! One might argue that he deserves to come a cropper!
Antonio isn’t even the principle character in the play; he’s a mere device, little more than a McGuffin who stews in the background as the action happens elsewhere.
Shylock, however, has considerably more depth. His is not a character motivated by blind prejudice; he has good reason to hate Antonio. But, and it’s a big but, his character is over the top. He is necessarily the villain who drives the plot in this Shakespearian comedy, which is pretty much an adult pantomime. Shylock is not just a Jewish moneylender; he is a caricature of a Jewish moneylender. However, one must acknowledge that this caricature would likely have been very much to a prejudicial audience’s taste.
It would be fair to say that Shylock is entitled to a little revenge upon his tormentor. Not only has he been publicly reviled by Antonio, but is subsequently robbed of his daughter (and a large amount of money) by one of Antonio’s friends. His revenge is taken to an extreme though. He actively conspires to kill his enemy with judicial sanction. Ruining him financially would seem to be a far more equitable recompense for the ills that he has suffered from Antonio’s behaviour.
But does he do these things because he is Jewish, or does he do them because he is a wronged and vengeful man who happens to be Jewish? The plot revolves around a debt, surety and a personal animosity between two men. Is the fact that one of them is Jewish and the other Christian, more important? Certainly the device is used to spawn a few jokes with a Christian bias, and it does add spice to the plot. But what about the other plot, Portia’s test of suitors with the three chests of gold, silver and lead. This is about not judging by appearances or having an overweening arrogance or conceit of one’s own worth over the worth of another. Is Portia a racist because she doesn’t want to marry a moor? No, she has a hankering for someone else.
For all Shylock’s machinations he does not benefit one jot. He is deprived of half his goods, he does not get repaid what he is justly owed and is forced to convert to Christianity or forfeit his life. On top of this his daughter has run off with a Christian and converted, taking a lot of his money with her. By any standards, I’d say he was pretty hard done by. True, he sought Antonio’s life, but he didn’t get to take it. His punishment, contextually, might be seen to be unjust. He certainly never received redress for the ills he suffered at Antonio’s hands. Would the Elizabethan audience have appreciated this, or would they have revelled in Shylock’s misfortune and said, “Serves him right,” because he was a Jew?
It is difficult to judge the play with the appreciation of a 16th century audience. Contemporarily we are burdened with the ghastly history of the 20th century on top of those which have intervened between. Anti-Semitism has become a glib rebuttal of even the most timid criticism or politically incorrect sentiment expressed against Jews or Judaism, even by other Jews. (One only need read Finklestein to appreciate this.)
One is minded to compare the nature and Character of Alf Garnet, a racist bigot in a comedy show, with the way Shylock is presented in the play. The Show was initially accused of being racist and bigoted, because of the ranting of its caricatured eponymous antihero, when it was, in fact, mocking racism and bigotry. Can the same not be said of The Merchant of Venice? Is the caricature of the Jewish moneylender not a vehicle which highlights attitudes towards Jews by supposedly good Christians, who spit upon them in public, revile them and expect them to mildly accept this treatment and then do them favours? Ultimately, one can only read the play and judge for one’s self, as when reading the play one is spared someone else’s interpretation, and how the play is performed might well colour one’s appreciation.
I don't know anything of Hawkman's ethnicity or religious affiliaton (if he has one) but as a Jew myself, I'm heartened
1) because if he is not a Jew, I am always deeply grateful when anon-Jew speaks dispassionately about Jews; and
2) if he is a Jew, it is nonetheless thrilling to read such a scholarly, even-handed evaluation of this question.
But surely a strong hint as to where Shakespeare stood on this issue is in
I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that
I've not got the drive to enter into such a discussion at the moment (so, OK, maybe I shouldn't respond at all) but I have to say I am getting a little fed up with all the anti-Semitic, feminist, gay and lesbian, racial, ageist - prejudice slant/open up the topic for discussion sort of question, as is the flavour of age. I'm not knocking the OP, this particular discussion (which could very well be interesting) at all, it's just a personal rant and objection to this overwhelming, it seems, obsession, for treating art as solely a means to constantly pose such 'ethical' questions. Heaven forbid a university sets a question - XYZ, is it any good?
I voted 'no' because I'm sick of art being lifted from its context and placed before a panel of 'X-factor judges' as to whether it makes the grade or gets dumped on the ever growing pile of banned and 'dangerous' books. :rant:
Edit: I just want to keep asking 'by whose standards?' By whose standards is XYZ, XYZ, by ours or theirs and so what either way? So what? Is Shakespeare pro murder because of Hamlet? Why the constant obsession?
Of course, all of that ranting is really just presenting a false dichotomy. You seem to be suggesting that you can either:Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
a) believe Shakespeare's play is anti-Semitic and it should be considered a dangerous book and banned.
or
b) think it is great work of art with wonderful aesthetic merit.
But are those the only two choices? Why can't someone hold the view that The Merchant of Venice is a very good play with much aesthetic merit and plenty of memorable characters, but one containing an extremely problematic and anti-Semitic depiction of one of its characters. I haven't seen anyone in this thread suggest we should ban the play.
Thanks for that, Prince. I appreciate your taking the time to read and add to my little essay. I would have to agree that this particular speech of Shylock’s would certainly indicate where Shakespeare’s sympathies might have lain. It is highly eloquent in bemoaning the divisions wrought between people by prejudice.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
I have always seen Shakespeare as essentially a humanist. His characters are acutely observed and very real, even when exaggerated. The Bard himself would have been no stranger to persecution. One must remember that he was growing up during the reformation, when the see-saw switches between the old Catholicism and the new Protestantism were in full swing, with Edward, Mary and then Elizabeth successively altering the religious landscape of England. Shakespeare’s own father would undoubtedly have been a covert Catholic and so it requires little imagination to picture the Swan of Avon as being one too. In a country which was actively persecuting Catholics, and where Catholic priests toured the country secretly, in disguise, hiding in priest’s holes for fear of discovery, it is not unfeasible that sympathy for a similarly persecuted religious group, whatever their ethnicity, might have held a particular resonance for him.
By the time of James 1st , Catholic conspiracy against the protestant throne was a very real threat and in 1605 there was the Gunpowder plot.
I’m not sure how familiar our readership might be with the Shakespeare connection to this major historical event, but there is more than a suggestion of his involvement at some level, in that he knew some of the conspirators and frequented their haunts. The writing of Macbeth, was, in no small part, an effort to distance himself from them after the event and prove his loyalty. For more information see:
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/bi...owderplot.html
Live and be well - H
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman
I wish I could have written this. :yesnod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman
I'm not suggesting either or none or all of those things. I'm merely raising the question of the question and frankly quite fed up of modern 'ethical' debates of this sort, where 'issues' are raised and the work is entirely secondary - in fact often unimportant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Problematic? Problematic for who? For what purpose? So what.
At the height of the brief fashion of aestheticism Wilde would argue aesthetics above intellectualism declaring that all pictures that make you say 'how interesting' as opposed to 'how beautiful' are bad pictures. We have gone beyond such narrow perspectives today of course, today art must make us think about who this 'offends', which minority figure is 'under-represented' and debate the whole (non) issue constantly. Such progress.
In fact surely it is much better just to bypass the whole debate anyway and throw bad books like this one onto the rejected offenders pile next to the likes of Conrad, Steinbeck and Dante?
The debate has inspired me enough to start reading The Merchant of Venice...
You know, for someone sick of these type of arguments you sure spend a lot of time participating in them. I am failing to see how Shylock's portrayal, a main character, isn't integral to understanding the play. On the one side, we have a few people arguing that the play isn't anti-Semitic, but rather the central themes of the play are anti-religious bigotry, which by definition would make Shylock's portrayal central to the play's theme and therefore an integral part of the play. On the other side, you have people arguing it is anti-Semitic, which would of course change the play's themes (for example I suggested the play can be read as a kind of allegory for the nature of Christianity versus the nature of Judaism), our historical understanding of how the original audience viewed the play, and the archetypal/stereotypical figures Shylock is based upon, which ultimately is an aesthetic consideration. All of that seems pretty integral to the play rather than secondary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Now if the only thing you want out of literature and art is to finish the last page and sigh, "Ah, how beautiful" that is your business. But I find that a rather superficial and shallow way to approach art. As I already suggested there is nothing stopping anyone from appreciating art both aesthetically and intellectually.
That was not what Neely was getting at, though.
The whole thing about branding anything 'feminist', 'anti-semitic', 'lesbian' and the like is useless if it does not contribute to an overall view.
If The Mechant of Venice was read with a view to know more about attitudes towards Jews in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance or through history, why not, then that stamp of 'anti-semitism' would actually be of some use. As it is, we are here branding TMoV anti-semitic and after that? Everyone knows what people did to Jews back then (not in England, but there you go, there were none there), so it is not surpising that Shylock is portrayed like that. Frankly the muslim in the play is also stereotypical and the conceited Spanish prince as well. As are the Venician guys because they are spending money they don't have. Cue their total destruction in the 18th century. The process was already beginning in Shakespeare's days. It would become a whole with at some point 20% of the population infected with syphilis. Gambling was rife and women sold their bodies outside casinos to be able to gamble. In two generations it would go from on top of the world to a backwater where everyone was poor and tuberculosis ruled.
At a basic level, everyting is stereotypical, so yes the Jew as well. Had he been a black man, a muslim, a Chinaman, or whatever else there is to find, it would have been stereotypical.
So, why are we discussing whether or not this play is antisemitic? What purpose does it have? It is definitely anti-semitic and racist according to what we believe, but is what we believe as modern readers relevant? What is the purpose of calling it anti-semitic? Is it to put it away to be forgotten? No. Or is it to once more point out how fantastic these modern times are? Maybe no.
In short it has no purpose, because nothing will be done with it. So, indeed, as Neely says, why not stop discussing that stuff and move on to more interesting things?
Since the argument is that the main themes of the play centrally rely on the portrayal of Shylock it very much does have to do with discussing the actual play. Nothing you just said rebutted that point. So discussing whether it is anti-Semitic or not does in fact contribute to an overall view in this case; it's talking about an issue that is central to the play. That is why we're discussing it. Also, because that is what the original poster asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
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.
Well, it's just some kid's topic in his literature class, isn't it? It's a common (boring) discussion, I've had dozens. "Is Heart of Darkness racist?" "does Dashiell Hammett portray women in a misogynistic way?" "is the fact that Lucy dies in Dracula but Mina lives pushing Christian standards of female behavior?" &c &c &c. So to answer to your question, I guess that's why we're discussing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
I wouldn't say it's a worthless discussion, it's not like it's everyone is going to say "that's it, tMoV is antisemetic and that's all there is to say about it!" The question of whether Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock is antisemetic is bound to spark a discussion on whether attributing characters with stereotypical traits actually is racist (usually the consensus is "yes"), whether or not that takes away from the work and the author (usually the consensus is "no"), and it'll also lead to a discussion on the changing state of social norms in terms of political correctness (usually the consensus is "derp! We're more politically correct now!"). That's just how classes operate, there wouldn't be much of a discussion if everyone was all "sigh, how beautiful!" Racism/sexism/blah isn't ALL they talk about, or even most of it ("is Heart of Darkness a journey into the human mind?" "How does Hammett's hard-boiled detective type compare to Arthur Connan Doyle's soft boiled detective type?" "Is Helsing's approach to science legitimate?"), but it's part of it, not to mention it's unavoidable - completely ignoring Shylock's portrayal would obviously be stepping around the elephant in the room.
I think what we believe today is what is relevant to this issue since we are the ones reading or watching the play and we are the ones who can continue antisemitism or not. Calling the play antisemitic is just one way of saying that such behavior is not acceptable today no matter how famous the writer of this play is.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
I also don't think antisemitism is dead or something that ended in the last century. I hear it in the community I live in where a teenager can tease a Jewish teenage of being a "baby Jesus killer". The Jews did not kill Jesus. The Romans did. Until that reality sinks in the issue of antisemitism is with us still.