af amelia price 2 år siden
1474
Mere som dette
Huang, A. C. Y. (2009). Chinese Shakespeares. New York: Columbia University Press.
In a letter describing his impression of RSC touring production of The Merchant of Venice of Beijing in 2002, an audience member by the name of Chaoxu from Anhui wrote enthusiastically about the play's relevance to modern-day China: “China is developing so fast that 90 percent of the population want to make money…The Merchant of Venice is a play that shows what happens to a society places too great an emphasis on money. People should take notice of Shakespeare has to say” (Hickling, 2002).
Hickling, A. (2002). Theatre: Sit down and shut up: It took the RSC more than 20 years to get to china - and almost as long to get the audience to pay attention. Alfred Hickling reports. The Guardian (London, England).
Wu, F. (1981). "Weinisi shangren zuotanhui sanji" (Notes on the symposium concerning the performance of The Merchant of Venice). Waiquo xij, 1(1), 54-57.
Fang, P. (1981). "Fan pu gui zhen-Weinisi shangren de yanchu shexiang" (Back to the plain truth-suggestions for the performance of The Merchant of Venice). Waiquo wenxueyanjiu, 5(2), 8-19.
Zhang, Q. (1985). "Rang 'shangdi' jianglin renjian-zai Zhongguo Shashibiya Yanjiuhui chengli dahui shang de fayan" (Let 'god' descend to the human world: a speech to the first convention of the Chinese Society for Shakespearean Research). Qjngnianyishu, 1(1), 7-12.
Shen, F. (1988). Shakespeare in China: The Merchant of Venice. Asian Theatre Journal, 5(1), 23-37.
Third phase: post-revolutionary
“If the first phase saw Shakespeare, without his language, made into Chinese plots, the second saw his language, in awkward translation, placed naively on the stage and supported primarily by traditional Chinese theatre practice. The third phase, extending from 1949 the cultural revolution and up to the present, created a Western Marxist Shakespeare for the Chinese people, one reflecting the teachings of Marx and Mao” (Shen, 1988: p. 24-25).
Tackling Shakespeare meant that China also had to tackle the exact logistics of Western philosophy, political and cultural experience in relation to general Marxist and Maoist theory. The increasing development of Shakespearean productions, and thus consequently literary criticism, can be interpreted as representing a symbolic interaction between the East and West.
Second phase: prerevolutionary
During this period, Shakespeare’s plays were started to be performed seriously using direct translations. These early translations were crude and generally unappealing to Chinese audiences. In May of 1930, directed by Ying Yunweig based on a translation by Zhonglif , the Shanghai Association of Dramae publicly performed The Merchant of Venice. Chinese theatre historians claim this was the first serious attempt at an authentic performance of Shakespeare in China.
Literary criticism on Shakespeare in this period was introductory, focusing on plot summary and surface explanations, as Shakespeare was still not widely recognised and accessible.
First phase: initial prerevolutionary
Shakespeare’s first introduced in China was through the form of stories of his plays, with some adapted for performance as spoken drama. A characteristic of traditional Chinese theatre was emphasizing dialogue opposed to singing and this spoken drama was modelled on Western conceptions of realism. After this development, Shakespearean adaptions were rendered in terms of traditional Chinese theatre conventions, and productions started to use Chinese names and costumes. The names of Shakespeare’s play titles were translated and The Merchant of Venice was known as either ‘Bond of Meat’, ‘Lawyeress’, or ‘A Pound of Flesh’.
What is defining of this period’s productions is that Shakespeare’s actual text was absent, and only a stylized version of his plays existed. In this sense, it can be said that the Chinese people had never heard or seen a Shakespearean play.
In 1980, director at the Chinese Youth Art Theatre Zhang Qihong staged The Merchant of Venice.
In attempt to bring together Chinese and Western theatrical conventions (a common aspiration of new Chinese Shakespearean adaptions), Zhang most critically acclaimed change was to the casket scene in Portia’s home. In conventional Western productions, the three caskets are put on the table. In her production three dancers held the caskets, clad in costumes that matched the nature of their casket and its contents. The three dancers danced to music in a manner that was specific to their casket as the choosers gave their speeches.
Her adaption reduced the twenty-five scenes to twelve, cutting most of the lines referring to the antagonism between Jews and Christians. Her reasoning for this was that Chinese productions have no need to accentuate the religious and racial conflicts that are unfamiliar and irrelevant Chinese history and thus, Chinese people. She also stated that Shylock should be presented as a usurer and not as a Jew. Thus, the major scenes of the play must focus on the struggle between a feudal usurer and rising capitalism, represented through Antonio. Lastly, in Zhang Qihong opinion, The Merchant of Venice should extol Chinese values of generosity, honesty, friendship, and love and condemn cruelty and evil.
Zhang’s position reflects Chinese standard of dramatic aesthetics typical of post 1976. Chinese dramatic criticism required that plays emphasize major conflicts shown through the major characters, and omit minor conflicts often between minor characters. This was so that a play’s themes and conflicts could be delivered in a more straightforward manner, allowing the play to lend itself more easily in serving educational purposes.
A Taiwan Bang Zi Opera Company preformed Merchant of Venice in 2011 under the name Bond.
Hai-ling Wang’s Shylock is a deconstruction of the antagonist in Shakespeare’s play. Portrayed as a sympathetic character. Shylock is a Arab trader who goes to China on business but is faced with religious and racial discrimination.
Many scenes of the original play have been cut. Jessica has been omitted and Portia, Bassino and Antonia are downplayed. The focus instead is on the marginal character Shylock.
“Due to the deletion of the subplot wherein Shylock‟s daughter Jessica steals his valuables to elope with Antonio‟s friend Lorenzo, the conflicts and hatred between the Jewish money-lender Shylock toward the Christian merchant Antonio is weakened” (Tuan, 2012: p. 254).
“The boundary between traditional Chinese xiqu (戲曲) role types is broken” within this production (Tuan, 2012: p. 253). All the major parts are played by women.
Tuan, I. H. (2012). Bond: Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venicein Taiwan. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2(12), 253-260.
Set in Sung Dynasty in China
In the style of 'Yu opera' which is one of China's famous national opera forms
Shakespeare's poetry is enhanced by melodious music but is measured with the incorporation of the Yu operatic style of singing.
Yu opera's style is very passionate but natural. Imitates ordinary people's lives but with abrupt conflicts
The pre-credit sequence contextualises the film by showing a crucifix rapidly juxtaposed with Hebrew texts which are ignited. The intentions of the film are made explicit when following this shot the quote “intolerance of the Jews was a fact of 16th-century life”. "The watery landscape of Venice, the brothels and courtesans that entertain the Christian inhabitants, and the gates that separate Jew from Christian lend a topographical specificity to the film's meditation on racism" (Pittman, 2007: p.13)
Pittman, L. M. (2007). Shakespeare on screen: Locating the bard: Adaptation and authority in michael radford's "the merchant of venice". Shakespeare Bulletin, 25(2), 13-33.
"The film makes no interpretive choice that would position the Jewish moneylender as a comic foil nor as the Jew of Medieval and Renaissance nightmares rapacious for Christian fiesh” (Pittman, 2007:p.19). Shylock instead emphasises his status as a powerless victim of Venetian prejudices.
The film dedicates itself to showing that The Merchant of Venice centres around Shylock’s religious persecution that he faced even at the hand of his creator - Shakespeare. His villainy is always limited to be partly depicted as Jewish villainy, which in turn reflects the extent of his maltreatment. The avaricious Jewish caricature is an accurate fundamental proponent of his character and cannot be omitted. What defines this film is that it labours to shower Shylock with unambiguous sympathy in light of this and reflect the perils of racism.
Pacino’s performance of Shylock showcases a dignity and pride of his Jewish identity. The twisted intensity of Pacino’s delivery serves to undercut the sentimental narrative established by the director Radford's interpolations and textual overlays. The underlying menace of this Shylock shows how his position as an immigrant outsider trying to establish a place in an unwelcoming society, compounded with a loaded history of discrimination, breeds a vigilant antagonism to the enfranchised.
Heinrich Henie, a German poet saw the production and told of a “‘pale British beauty” who “wept passionately” and cried out repeatedly “The poor man is wronged!” (Ackermann, 2011: p.389). This is reflective of how perceptions of Shylock were shifting. Shylock was no longer defined simplistically as an embodiment of the prescribed negative characteristics of the Jewish race, but as a multifaceted human being, capable of evoking sympathy.
Shylock "becomes a half-favourite with the philosophical part of the audience, who are disposed to think that Jewish revenge is at least as good as Christian" (Hazlitt, 1820).
Hazlitt, W. (1820). Lectures on the Literature of the Age of Elizabeth. In Leah S. Marcus (Ed.) The Merchant of Venice. New York: Norton.
Jewish Israelis recognise Shylock as a victim of religious persecution and tragic hero that mirrors thier own adversity.
In Israel, The Merchant of Venice is “loaded simultaneously with the terror of extermination and the dilemma of might” and as Fikhman said, Shylock “symbolizes the humiliation of Israel” (Oz, 1993: p. 60)
Oz, Avraham. ‘The Merchant of Venice in Israel.’ Foreign Shakespeares, ed. Dennish Kennedy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. 60-73.
This production was unique and set precedent in manner of tackling how the Jewish handle Shylock in a modern society.
Both Shylock, and the character Alvin Epstein who played him, are “craven caricature of the Jew as comic villain” and a “hostile inmate of a prison camp desperately seeking revenge” (Isaac, 1965: p.463). This means that Shylock's Jewishness is being represented both in alliance to anti-Semitic stereotypes faithful to earlier interpretations, but also shows his adversity to abide simply as a Jewish devil. Angered at the injustices faced by him, his revenge seems justified and understandable rather than due to an inherent loathing and violence that can be prescribed as an ontological quality of the Jewish race.
Isaac, D. (1965). What's Happening with Drama. Judaism, 16(1), 463-472.
His adaptation involved Shakespeare’s play being preformed within the framework of another play, incorporating the Shakespearean trope of a play within a play. Jewish inmates of a concentration camp, most probably Auschwitz or Theresienstadt, are forced to perform The Merchant of Venice to entertain Nazi soldiers.
The layering of two dramatic levels becomes unsustainable, leading to the calamity of the plot. The climax of the play is parallel to the climax of Shakespeare’s play - the trail scene.
Alvin Epstein, who has been forced to wear a long false nose and red yarn wig to play Shylock, refuses to participate in this humiliating degradation any longer. Casting off his racially signifying props and dropping his exaggerated Yiddish accent, he asks "What judgement shall i dread doing nothing wrong?" (Pooler, 1917: p.139, ln 89) Using Shakespeare's line to confront the Nazi oppression knowing it would lead to violent consequence, and thus ignoring the other prisoners' encouragement to play along, highlights the dignity of Shylock. However, it also accentuates the inhumanity of Jewish representation and political subjugation. The genocide of the Jewish population is mirrored in how Alvin is left unaided in his revolution and attacks the guards with a knife. Instead of being christened like Shylock, he is violently killed off stage while the other prisoners carrying on with the play and the audience continue to watch.
The audience simultaneously become the Nazi audience on stage, unwitting complicate to the horrors they enact. As an anonymous commentator stressed: "One could not choose not to be. A mere laugh became an act of oppression; an anti-Semitic portrayal was of your doing; sympathy or tears was hypocritical“ (Schülting, 2017: p.230)
Schülting, S. (2017). Evoking the Holocaust in George Tabori Productions of The Merchant of Venice. In Edna Nahshon (Ed.) Wrestling with Shylock: Jewish Responses to The Merchant of Venice (pp. 224-242). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
In the original production, the stage was completely bare except for a huge portrait of Hitler, and the props and costumes are made to mimic what the Jewish prisoners would have been able to create with the limited material available.
Ackermann, Z. (2011). Performing Oblivion / Enacting Remembrance: The Merchant of Venice in West Germany, 1945 to 1961. Shakespeare Quarterly, 62(3), 364-395.
"The Merchant of Venice’s contemporary performance history is awash in guilt, controversy, re-examination and re-interpretation—becoming receptacle for innumerable ethnic, religious and political corrections, adaptations and emendations—subversions and provocations—with adaptors and directors willfully mandating their own standards of positivity and negativity" (Horowitz, 2007: p.8)
Horowitz, A. (2007). Shylock After Auschwitz: The Merchant of Venice On the Post-Holocaust Stage - Subversion, Confrontation and Provocation. Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory, 8(3), 7-19.
Harold Bloom stated that "one would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to recognise that Shakespeare's grand, equivocal comedy The Merchant of Venice is nevertheless a profoundly anti-Semitic work. The problem involves the portrayal of the figure of the “Jew” Shylock since it is difficult for us to approach this character outside the context of the Holocaust" (Bloom, 1998: p.171).
Bloom, H. (1998). Shakespeare and The Invention of The Human. New York: Riverhead Books.
Is this was the case then why would anyone stage this play in the 21st century? The Merchant of Venice is complex in that it both exploits and interrogates Early Modern "racist fantasies [that] continue to compel belief because they tap into some of the deepest fears people have of 'turning'-especially of physical, sexual, or religious transformation." However, in light of this dangerous duality, "to avert our gaze from what the play reveals about the relationship between cultural myths and peoples' identities will not make irrational and exclusionary attitudes disappear". Therefore, "censoring the play is always more dangerous than staging it" (Shapiro, 1996: p. 228).
The Merchant of Venice offers a visceral exhibit of religious persecution and a character defiantly proud of his Jewish identity. Oscillating between a crude stereotype and an exquisitely drawn individual exposes the flaws of bigotry and makes Shylock a perennially fascinating character.
Shylock is ever conscious of his Jewishness in a Christian community and his 'Hath a Jew not eyes' speech has become one of the most famous Shakespeare quotes of all time.
"Shylock: He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million ; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies ; and what 's his reason ? 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, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled 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, shall we not revenge? If we arc like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility ? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example ? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction" (Pooler, 1917: p.94-95, ln 52-72).
This speech is one of the most defining and supreme pleas for human tolerance in dramatic literature. It illustrates the universality in human existence and sheds light on the hypocrisy of the supposed Christian virtue of humility through heavy sarcasm. It exposes the Christian duplicity of moral standards. The humility of a Christian ceases when they are wronged as they seek revenge. Shylock’s course of action follow the same logic, for his wants revenge for the injustices he has suffered - "The villainy you teach me I will execute“. Yet this actions are opposed when the victim is Jewish for no other reason than because of his Jewishness. His speech calls for racial equality and equality of faith.
By 1900, there are more productions of Shakespeare each year in Germany than there is in England.
“Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels announced in 1939 that Hitler himself had permitted the staging of Shakespeare productions” (Heschel, 2007: p.291)
Heschel, S. (2007). The Nazi Appropriation of Shakespeare: Cultural Politics in the Third Reich (review). Journal of Interdisciplinary History 38(2), 290-291.
"If Shakespeare was received with such open arms in Germany, it was because we do not doubt he is bound to us with ties of blood. In other words: we recognise in the universal dramatic world of Shakespeare the same racial basic elements of the Nordic from which we have learned to derive the highest values of our people” (Bonnell, 2008: p. 139)
Bonnell, A. G. (2008). Shylock in Germany: Antisemitism and the German Theatre From the Enlightenment to the Nazis. London: Tauris Academic Studies.
Throughout the 1930’s, the Hitler youth organised ‘S weeks’ where they would celebrate Shakespeare’s birthday.
First Shakespeare society of the world was formed in Germany - 'Deutsche Shakespeare-Gesellschaft'.
Hamlet for example was interpreted as Hamlet as a proto-German warrior. Der Stürmer, a Nazi newspaper, turned the narrative of Hamlet to be an allegory for Germany, likening "the crime that . . . deprived Hamlet of his inheritance" to the Treaty of Versailles and "Gertrude's betrayal [to] that of the spineless Weimar politicians" (Symington, 2005: p.190).
Symington, R.(2005). The Nazi Appropriation of Shakespeare: Cultural Politics in the Third Reich. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
The production was commissioned by the Nazi Gauleiter of Vienna, Baldur von Schirach.
The director Lothar Müthel was a loyal and forthright supporter of the Nazi party. He was appointed by Goebbels for the role. A film adaption was planned but never materialised.
Shylock was played by Werner Krauss who had previously starred in anti-Semitic Nazi film The Jud Süs. Shylock was played as a racist caricature that fit the narrative of Nazi eugenic ideology.
From Shylock’s first appearance his character is loaded with overtly negative connotations that serve to besmirch and create aggravation towards the Jewish population. Werner Krauss’ Shylock frightened audiences as he arrived “with a crash and a weird train of shadows, something revoltingly alien and startlingly repulsive crawled across the stage” (Symington, 2005).
Critically acclaimed to be the perhaps “the most notorious Shakespeare production in history”(Schnauder, 2015).
Schnauder, L. (2015). ‘The most infamous Shakespeare Production in History ? The Merchant of Venice at Vienna’s Burgtheater in 1943’ . Shakespeare en devenir 9(1). Retrieved from <http://shakespeare.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/index.php?id=865>.
"Whereas in the 1940 propaganda films…the message had been that Jews are dangerous and, if not prevented, might seize world‑power, by 1943, at the height of the Holocaust, they could be represented as figures of fun that deserve our contempt and the fate that awaits them. It is probably in this particular aspect of the production that its true infamy should be located" (Schnauder, 2015).
German for The Merchant of Venice
Der Kaufmann von Venedig was a comedy by Wilhelm Schüttelspeer- a 20th century playwright of German (Anglo-Saxon ancestry. He was admired by the Nazi Chancellor and Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels (pictured to the left).
"The annual lecture for 1937 to the German Association for the study of Wilhelm S...was delivered by a Eugenicist". The lecture discussed the importance of Wilhelm Schüttelspeer’s portrayal of the Aryan race in his adaption. (Wells, 2002: p.63)
Wells, S. (2002). Shakespeare Survey, Volume 48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The lecture stated that Schüttelspeer was "someone who has inquired what conception of love and marriage will be suitable or necessary to improve the stock of a people, someone who has further inquired what kind of girls and women the young men of a people ought to incline to in order to beget a more effective, more handsome and nobler posterity" (Günther, 1937).
Günther, H. F. K. (1937). S's Mädchen und Frauen. S-Jahrbuch, 75(1), 85-104.
His prescription to eugenic ideology means his portrayal of Portia (Günther) shows her to have a "mixture of reserve, strong feelings and clarity of mind, along with a talent for the masterful assurance that belongs to an inherently aristocratic being. We cannot doubt that will develop into a truly Germanic mistress of the house" (Günther, 1937). She becomes the German Heroine of the play, as she is the ideal mother figure perpetuating Nazi values of an Aryan race.
The play was an adaptation of The Merchant of Venice that celebrated the conquest of a Jewish money-lender (Müthel) by a Christian.
In a 1932 performance of his play, the Jewish villain was depicted as having "a gaunt, sickly pale and grubby face. His thin beard seemed to have been attacked by an unappetizing lichen. His clumsy. sat body shuffled forward, waddling and staggering on its flat feet“ (Weisker, 1932: p.210).
Weisker, J.(1932). Theaterschau: Shakespeare auf der deautschen Buhne. Shakespeare-Jahrbuch, 69(1), 200-225.
The negative Jewish stereotypes and derogatory traits are exaggerated and concentrated into this single figure to escalate scathing views of the Jewish population at large. Dwelling on the repudiate qualities of a “repulsive and vermin-like” Shylock serves the ideological purpose of radicalizing his differences that incorporates itself into the discourse of racism (Weisker, 1932: p.210).
Paul Ross planted actors within the audience to loudly jeer and hiss when Shylock entered the stage. This encouraged the general audience to do the same and set the tone of antisemitism as a fundamental proponent of this production.
His production showed “a pathological image of the Eastern European Jewish type, expressing all its inner and outer uncleanliness” (Gross, 1992).
Gross, J. (1992). Shylock: Four Hundred Years in the Life of a Legend. New York: Vintage.
Exaggerating the comedic elements of the original play creates “an accusation against the race” of Shylock (Gross, 1992: p.295).
In 1893 Berlin, an anonymous pamphlet was published that urged the government to confiscate the wealth of the Jewish businessmen. The pamphlet claimed that the restrictive legislation of the German Conservatives was useless as the Jewish community would comply to the formalities of conversion and stay, using Marranos in Spain as an example, and a more assertive and violent approach was necessary. The pamphlet used The Merchant of Venice to communicate its message.
Extract from pamphlet: "Just as Portia once destroyed Shylock, so now Germania destroys this nation of international speculators" (Gross, 1994).
Gross, J. (1994). Shylock: A Legend and Its Legacy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
The pamphlet wants to go further than what is portrayed in The Merchant of Venice. Shylock ends up with half of his assets as Antonio waves his right to claim his half. The inclusion of destruction adds menace to their proposition that shows their agenda is more than just confiscation from the Jewish people.
Invoking Portia’s triumph over Shylock presents their plan of mass robbery as having the same moral righteousness Portia enabled to seize Shylock’s assets. The victim of these scenario is Jewish, thus the act is rendered justifiable and deserving despite the inhumanity of confiscating wealth based on race and leaving these people without means to support themselves. “Portia: The party 'gainst the which he doth contrive Shall seize one half his goods; the other half Comes to the privy coffer of the state; […] Shylock: You take my house when you do take the prop That doth sustain my house; you take my life When you do take the means whereby I live” (Pooler, 1917: p.152, ln-351- 376)
Makaryk, I. R., & McHugh, M. (2012). Shakespeare and the second world war: Memory, culture, identity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
The protocols of his table talk, it is reported that Hitler declared in July 1942 that Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock supplied a "timelessly valid characterization of the Jew“ (Pickler, 1983: p.457).
Picker, H. (1983). Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier. Stuttgart: Seewald.
Rate of performances of The Merchant of Venice in Nazi Germany: •1933 – 20 productions •1934-1939 – 30 productions •1942 – 72 productions Shortly after Kristallnacht in 1938 (night of pogrom against the Jews in Nazi Germany), The Merchant of Venice was broadcast on the radio. The increasing rate of The Merchant of Venice performances show that the Nazi's viewed it as a valuable tool of propaganda.
Symington, R. (2005). The Nazi Appropriation of Shakespeare. Lewiston: Edwin Mellon Press.
"Whereas Nazis emphasized and promoted the virtues of the Volk and the collective, Shakespeare’s work concentrate on the individual…Where the ‘people’ appear in Shakespeare’s serious plays…they are depicted as fickle and unreliable. Thus in attempting to appropriate the content of Shakespeare’s plays for their own ends, the Nazis were dealing with an essentially recalcitrant entity and were doomed to fail" (Symington, 2005: p.270).
Ackerman, Z. (2012). ‘Shakespearean Negotiations in the Perpetrator Society: German Productions of The Merchant of Venice during the Second World War.’ Shakespeare and the Second World War (pp. 35-62). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
'Hath not a Jew eyes?’ monologue was often deleted entirely such as in the Propaganda Ministry’s 1943 production.
Inter-faith marriage of Lorenzo and Jessica was particularly problematic to the Nazis as it condones the mixing of Aryan and Jewish blood. This sub-plot was either entirely deleted or altered in most productions. Jessica was often either Shylock’s foster child and thus of non-Jewish blood, or she was persuaded by Shylock to reject Lorenzo.
Smith, E. (2013). Was Shylock Jewish?. Shakespeare Quarterly, 64(2), 188-219.
Shakepeare creates intense focus on Shylock's Jewishness
This suggests that 'Shylock' is synonymous with 'Jew'. Rather than a character in his own right, he is meant to be a representation of Jewish identity.
Shakespeare, W. (1600). The Most Excellent Historie of the Merchant of Venice. London: I.R.
Online scan found at:
https://archive.org/details/mostexcellenthis00shak
As the first official summary, this shows that originally this play was interpreted as a tale of the extreme cruelty and blood lust of a Jew.
Halio, J. L. (1993). The Merchant of Venice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
"No one living in London at the time could have been ignorant of Lopez's history and fate” (Lee, 1880: p.195).
Lee, S. L. (1880). The Original of Shylock. Gentleman’s Magazine 246(1), 185-200.
The influence of the Lopez trial can be seen in the fact that Shylock and Lopez are both Jewish. However, the most prominent correlation can be seen in the dramatic pivot of the play – the trial scene (Act IV scene I). Shylock undergoes a brief rehearsal of the most prominent incident connected to Lopez.
The Merchant of Venice was written within four years of Lopez’s death. "It was amidst the excitement induced by the supposed iniquities of Dr Lopez...that The Merchant of Venice appeared" (Harkin, 1879).
Harkins, F. (1879). Shylock and Other Stage Jews. The Theatre, 1 Novemeber 1979, 191-198.
The Merchant of Venice can be read as a reply to the Lopez trial, as the trial was "a plea for toleration towards the Jews" (Harkin, 1879).
Harkins, F. (1879). Shylock and Other Stage Jews. The Theatre, 1 Novemeber 1979, 191-198.
The evidence against Lopez described him as “a perjured murdering traitor, and Jewish doctor, worse than Judas himself” (Green, 1867: p.455). Before the trial had even begun the Duke describes Shylock as “A stony adversary, an inhuman wretch, uncapable of pity, void and empty, From any dram of mercy” (Pooler, 1917: p.133, ln 4-6)
Green, M. A. E. (1867). Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth, 1591-1594. London: Longmans.
Pooler, C. K. (1917). The Works of Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice. London: Methuen & Co. LTD.
The similarities in the prejudice these figures face as part of their trials, shows how they were convicted as guilty because of their Jewishness rather than their actions. Shakespeare is perhaps highlighting the injustices of the court system in the Lopez trial by re-enacting it within Shylock’s trial.
“Marlowe's play was a wild success, and its popularity may have been the reason why Shakespeare decided to write his own version of the tale” (Mabillard, 2000)
Mabillard, A. (2000).‘Shakespeare's Sources for The Merchant of Venice’. Shakespeare Online. 13 February 2017. Retrieved from <http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sources/merchantsources.html>.
"The similar characters, setting, and plot all suggest that Shakespeare knew what would sell and produced something that would bring him money" (Misiura, 2007).
Misiura, L. (2007). ‘The portrayal of Jews in Shakespeare’s TheMerchant of Venice and Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta’. Cedar Crest College. 13 February 2017. Retrieved from <http://www2.cedarcrest.edu/academic/eng/lfletcher/venice/papers/lmisiura.htm>.
Both plays include: •Themes of money and power •Exotic setting •A victimised Jew vowed to seek revenge against a figure of Christianity •A virtuous daughter who abandons her Jewish father for Christianity •A Jewish villain who fails in his plan for revenge and the Christians triumph.
Yet there are profound differences. Marlowe’s Jew, Barabas, is simultaneously a comic glutton and a vengeance craving, irreligious psychopath. Shakespeare’s Jew, Shylock, explores the varying shades of human nature more explicitly and is harder to characterizes.
Jew of Malta is far more single minded in its critique of religious persecution. Merchant of Venice shows a nonchalant interweaving of a romantic courtship and a dramatic tale of revenge that skilfully relates quick developing romance to the slow build-up of potential tragedy. Shakespeare shows his audience a rich experience of love and suffering running simultaneously to each other, that enhance one and the other through the interrelationship of their contrasts.
“Shakespeare does not simply contrive a contrast of black and white, a measured interplay of abstract figures with every detail fitting into a pre- determined pattern. The lovers are not all paragons, and Shylock's cry for revenge is not without 'a kind of wild justice'”. (Brown, 2003 :p.71) It is in this where the play deviates away from Marlowe's.
Brown, J. R. (2003). Shakespeare and his Comedies. London: Routledge.
"Shakespeare owes Marlowe much, both in the choice of material and in the many echoes which show how his assimilative ear had taken the rich suggestiveness of his contemporary's style" (Humphreys, 1987: p.280)
Humphreys, A. (1987). "The Jew of Malta" and "The Merchant of Venice": Two Readings of Life. Huntington Library Quarterly, 50(3), 279-293.
There is no substantial evidence that Shakespeare ever travelled outside England. This was common for a lot of Elizabethans. Travel was dangerous, expensive and normally reserved for trade.
Protestant England was paranoid about people travelling to Catholic countries, such as Italy. The Protestant Reformation (1533) suppressed the custom of pilgrimages to Rome in an attempt to reduce Catholic influence in England. English travellers could be exposed to such things as: • Popery • Machiavellian ideology • Republicanism • Freedom of speech • Legalised prostitution
With no Jewish people living in England and the population rarely travelling aboard, how did the Elizabethan’s form their opinions on Jews?
Despite the lack of a permanent Jewish population in England, there was still Jews arriving at London's ports to conduct business as merchants. Shakespeare, like many of Elizabethans, would have likely met and conversed with some of them.
This is perhaps why Shylock is a merchant with a clear understanding in economics, trade and movement of ships and cargo. “Shylock: Three thousand ducats for three months and Antonio bound. Bassanio: Your answer to that. Shylock: Antonio is a good man. Bassino: Have you heard any imputation to the contrary? Shylock: Oh, no, no, no, no: my meaning in saying he is a good man is to have you understand me that he is sufficient. Yet his means are in supposition: he hath an argosy bound to Tripolis, another to the Indies; I understand moreover, upon the Rialto, he hath a third at Mexico, a fourth for England, and other ventures he hath, squandered abroad” (Pooler, 1917: p.31-32, ln 9-22)
The majority of people looked to the stage to learn about foreign countries, cultures and people. A huge number of Renaissance plays had foreign settings. For example, 29 of Shakespeare’s 38 plays were set abroad - The Merchant of Venice being one of them.
A Swiss traveller to London, Thomas Platter, commented in 1599 that the English gather information about foreign cultures from the theatre since they rarely travel: "The English pass their time, learning at the play what is happening abroad...since the English for the most part do not travel, but prefer to learn foreign matters and take their pleasures at home" (William, 1937: p.170)
William, C. (1937). Thomas Platter's Travels in England 1599. London: Jonathan Cape.
Elizabethan Law about Jews
In 1290 King Edward I issued the ‘Edict of Expulsion’. This edict banned all Jewish people from living in England and allowed for confiscation of all Jewish property. This occurred after a culmination of over 200 years of increased persecution towards the Jewish population in England. There were only individuals that practised Judaism in secret after this expulsion.
In 1492, the Catholic Monarchs of Spain issued ‘The Alhambra Decree’ ordering the expulsion of Jews practising Judaism from Spain and its territories. Over half of Jews in Spain converted in light of this religious persecution and those that did not were forced to flee. (Pictured is a signed copy of the decree)
The expulsion of Jews from England lasted until Oliver Cromwell was king. While never official readmitting Jews, when asked in 1650 by Menasseh Ben Israel (a rabbi and leader of the Dutch Jewish community) if Jews could be readmitted into England, Cromwell allowed it. The ban on Jews still existed but was no longer enforced. This act sparked great controversy and created divide in Britain that was acted out in a pamphlet war.
Shakespeare shows through setting both The Merchant of Venice and Othello in Venice, that within England there existed a cultural fascination with Venice that he was appealing to.
Sir John Woolley, in reaction to a bill by Parliament that was "against Aliens selling by way of retail any Foreign Commodities", stated that "this Bill should be ill for London, for the Riches and Renown of the City cometh by entertaining of Strangers, and giving liberty unto them. Antwerp and Venice could never have been so rich and famous but by entertaining of Strangers, and by that means have gained all the intercourse of the World” (D’Ewes, 1893: p.505).
D’Ewes, S. (1693). A compleat journal of the votes, speeches and debates, both of the House of Lords and House of Commons throughout the whole reign of Queen Elizabeth, of glorious memory. London: Scholarly Resources Inc.
This shows that there existed a belief within the Elizabethan era that Venice’s prosperity was caused by its receptiveness to immigrants, and London would benefit commercially if it followed suit.
Venice was a multicultural, ethnically diverse city. It was economically prosperous as well as highly developed in its politics and societal customs. "The wonderful concourse of strange and foreign people, yea, of the farthest and remotest nations, as though the City of Venice were a common and general market to the whole world" (Contarini, 1599).
Contarini, G. (1599). Commonwealth and Government of Venice. London
An example of the advantages of Venice's legal system is how foreigners are granted legal protection in trade. This is shown in The Merchant of Venice when Antonio remarks how his bond cannot be destroyed as Venice values foreigners as equal to Italian civilization within trade. "For the commodity that strangers have With us in Venice, if it be denied, Will much impeach the justice of his state; Since that the trade and profit of the city Consisteth of all nations" (Pooler, 1917 : p.121 , ln 27-31)
‘Four Myths of Venice’: •Venice the Rich (Epicenter of global trade with East •Venice the Wise (Sophisticated culture) •Venice the Just (Republican government and highly developed legal system) •Venice the Gallant (Place of revelry, carnival, and sexual freedom) (McPherson, 1990)
McPherson, D. (1990). Shakespeare, Jonson, and the Myth of Venice. Newark: University of Delaware Press.
There was hope that London could model itself on Venice to achieve the same prosperity at it was similarly a home of trade and ethic diversity to a lesser extent.
'Elizabethan Strangers' referred to Protestant refugees seeking political asylum from the Catholic Countries. ‘Strangers’ as a population comprised of roughly between 4 to 5 thousand in London throughout Elizabeth’s reign (Yungblut, 1996: p.21). Their presence created a public discourse concerned with alien immigration and integration.
Yungblut, L. H. (1996). Strangers Settled Here amongst Us: Policies, Perceptions and the Presence of Aliens in Elizabethan England. London: Routledge.
The anxieties surrounding the status of Protestant immigrants (such as their economic and moral impact, and consequences of inter-racial marriages) are expressed within The Merchant of Venice. Shylock: “I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, and so following; but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you" (Pooler, 1917: p.33, ln 36-38) Shylock here is expressing societal fears that immigrants will not integrate into English society and adopt English customs and values.
England in the Elizabethan period was firmly adhering to the Protestant religion as it was the religion of the reigning monarch, Queen Elizabethan I. This fervent Protestantism created hostility towards Catholicism and Judaism. However, the prejudice against Judaism differs to prejudices against the Catholics, in that it was against the Jewish as a race, opposed to just their faith.
Jews "were hated in England and so banyshed worthelye, wyth whom I woulde wyshe all these Englishmen were sent that lende their money or their goods whatsoever for gayne; for I take them to be no better than Iewes. Nay, shall I saye: they are worse than Iewes” (Wilson, 1925: p.232)
Wilson, T (1925). Intro. A Discourse upon Usury by R. H. Tawney. London: G. Bell and Sons.
A popular stereotype of the Jews was their status as demonic magical entities. Christians believed they possessed magical abilities, gained from a pact with the Devil. Due to this supposed, ability the Jewish people were considered responsible for spreading the Bubonic Plague (1346-1353) amongst Christians as the population was in panic and sought a target to blame, despite the fact that Jewish people also suffered from the disease.
Jews’ black magic association created connotations between Jews and witches to the Elizabethans, as they were a largely superstitious society with a history of xenophobia. This demonising of the Jewish figure led to physical caricatures as a long hooked nose and pale discoloured complexion.
Popular myths at the time involved Jews being “in the habit of stealing Christian children, crucifying them, and using their blood in the Passover ritual” (Sanders, 1968, p.344)
Sanders, W. (1968). Barabas and the Historical Jew in Europe. The Dramatist and the Received Idea: Studies in the Plays of Marlowe and Shakespeare (pp. 339-351). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shylock conforms to the stereotype of Jews through his obsession with monetary wealth and the barbarism of his desires and actions.
Solanio:"My daughter, O my ducats, O my daughter! Fled with a Christian! O my Christian ducats! Justice, the law, my ducats, and my daughter," (Pooler, 1917: p.80, ln-15-17) Solanio reports that Shylock was furious when learning that his daughter Jessica stole his money and ran off to marry a Christian. Solanio's portrayal of Shylock shows him to be conflicted between what he found more devastating - the loss of his money or his daughter. The repetition of ducats and daughter show Shylock to be conflating the two that fuels his depiction as an inhuman rapacious Jew.
Shylock: "I hate him for he is a Christian, But more for that in low simplicity He lends out money gratis, and brings down The rate of usance here with us in Venice" (Pooler, 1917: p.34, ln 42-45) Within this passage Shylock not only shows that he opposition to Antonio is due to his Christianity (thus perpetuating Judaism as the antithesis to Christianity), but his hatred is centred around money. He resents Antonio for lending out money free of interest, negatively impacting his own business.
"Be nominated for an equal pound Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken In what part of your body pleaseth me." (Pooler, 1917: p.41, ln 149-151) Shylock's business proposition draws on racist stereotypes when demanding that a pound of Antonio's "fair flesh" will serve as a bond for the loan. The 16th-century audience would associate this with the prevalent stories about murderous Jews supposedly seeking Christian blood for religious rituals.
When Shylock confronts Antonio to illustrate the religious precision he has faced, Antonio apologetically remains convicted in his behaviour. This can be symbolic of how these negative views of the Jewish population are seen as righteous and deserving.
"Shylock: You call me misbeliever, cutthroat dog, And spet upon my Jewish gaberdine, [...] 'Fair sir, you spet on me on Wednesday last, You spurned me such a day; another time You called me dog; and for these courtesies I'll lend you thus much moneys'? [...] Antonio: I am as like to call thee so again, To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too" (Pooler, 1917: p.38-40, ln 111-132)
Pooler, C. K. (1917). The Works of Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice. London: Methuen & Co. LTD.
The Dutch Church Libel
The Dutch Libel of 1593 refers to a toxic handbill posted to a church door in London . It was one of several handbills posted around London that expressed contemporary anxieties about immigration into England and immigrants conducting business.
The Libel read as followed (extract): "Ye strangers yt doe inhabite in this lande[...} Your usery doth leave us all for deade Your Artifex, & craftesman works our fate, And like the Jewes, you eate us up as bread" (Freeman, 1973: p.50-51).
Freeman, A. (1973). Marlowe, Kyd, and the Dutch Church Libel. English Literary Renaissance, 3(1), 44-52.
Through such lines as “like the Jewes you eate us up as bread”, the Libel is advocating for a anti-alien economic protectionism that focuses more on Jews than Protestant asylum seekers. The writers are utilizing Anti-Jewish rhetoric that show that this rhetoric is a clearly available trope within Elizabethan society.They use these connotations to degrade the Protestants by comparison.
The libel "provides a remarkable example of how the alien threat shifts easily into anti-Jewish discourse" (Shapiro, 1996: p.184).
Shapiro, J. (1996). Shakespeare and the Jews. New York: Columbia University Press.
The writers of the “Libel” compared the Protestant exiles to Jews and claimed that these groups are thriving in business while English citizens starve.
The Elizabethan staging of Shylock drew on existing negative caricatures of Jews. His depiction invokes the wicked Jewish moneylender stereotype
"Depictions of fiendish Jews were routine in medieval and Renaissance drama; the villainous protagonist of Christopher Marlowe's Jew of Malta, a popular success in the early 1590s, was only the latest precedent" (Shakespeare, 1997: p.1111)
Shakespeare, W. (1997). The Norton Shakespeare. Eds. Stephen Greenblatt, et. al. 1th Ed. Vol. 1. New York: Norton.
"To an Elizabethan audience, the fiery red wig that he almost certainly wore spelled out his ancestry" (Gross,1992: p.16)
"It is highly probable, moreover, that Shylock wore the red hair and beard... as well as the bottle-nose of Barabas" (Stroll, 1911).
Stoll, E. (1911). Shylock. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 10(1), 236-279.
"In the earliest productions, Shylock was played with a bright red wig and a grotesque hooked nose. He was in appearance the wicked Jew of anti-Semitic fantasy, one of those hideous faces that leer at the suffering Jesus in paintings by Hieronymus Bosch" (Greenblatt, 2010).
Greenblatt, S. (2010). ‘Shakespeare & Shylock’. New York Review of Books. 30 September 2010. Retrieved from <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/sep/30/shakespeare-shylock/ipagi nation=false>.
Assumptions of Elizabethan stage practises are often based on Medieval stage conventions
"Since medieval mystery and miracle plays portrayed Judas with red beard and hair and a large nose, later stage-Jews followed suit" (Gross,1992: p.16)
Gross, J. (1992). Shylock: Four Hundred Years in the Life of a Legend. London: Chatto & Windus.
In describing the York cycle, Frederick Wood claims that "the conventional Judas of the mysteries wore a red grisly beard which afterwards became the traditional sign of the villainous stage Jew" (Wood, 1940: p.199)
Wood, F. (1940). The Comic Elements in the English Mystery Plays. Neophilologus, 25(1), 194-206.
