Right. The most likely correct answer to the OP’s question is “not especially.”
The best answer, as with all things related to Shakespeare, is “it’s complicated.” Or, to be more specific, “yes by our standards, probably not by the standards of his own society.”
Shakespeare depicts three Jewish characters, all of whom appear in the same play, The Merchant of Venice. One of them, Jessica, is basically depicted as a good person. (She does some things that are morally questionable by early modern standards, such as marrying without the consent of her father and stealing some of his property, but the play itself does not condemn these actions.) Another one, Tubal, is a minor character who doesn’t say or do anything that clearly marks him as “good” or “bad” in the text, although, as Hermione points out, directors can make more substantive choices with this character in performance. Then there’s Shylock. He’s the antagonist, and he’s legitimately an unpleasant, bitter, vengeful person who tries to kill Antonio; but, on the other hand, we know enough about the reasons for his anger and vindictiveness to make it clear that “he’s just evil because he’s a Jew” is NOT the correct explanation for his actions (although Antonio, and other Christian characters, do read him that way). Shylock argues, plausibly, that he’s acquired his vengefulness because of his treatment, and the treatment of Jews in general, at the hands of Christians:
Nothing we see in the play suggests that this argument, or the other examples of Christian hypocrisy that Shylock cites (e.g., slave-owning), are meant to be read by the audience as false. In fact, Antonio admits that he has spit on and kicked Shylock, and would gladly do it again; in the scene that sets up their antagonism, Antonio is clearly asking for exactly what he ends up getting. (Although Shylock seems to dislike Christians in general, Antonio is the only one he actively tries to harm.)
So, I’d argue that Shakespeare does not depict Jews as inherently evil or despicable. He doesn’t, however, depict all religions as equally valid – there isn’t ever any real question that Christianity is supposed to be superior. Jessica voluntarily converts to Christianity when she marries a Christian, and the play celebrates this conversion, treating it as part of her happy ending. Shylock is forced to convert, although the play does seem to register that this conversion is morally questionable (Shylock’s exit line, “I pray you, give me leave to go from hence / I am not well” can have a LOT of bite in performance). Still, there’s nothing in there that suggests Shakespeare meant for us to give these conversions anything other than the standard, early-modern Christian reading: it’s good when non-Christians convert to Christianity because this is the only way they can receive eternal salvation. Needless to say, they’re usually depicted as WAY more problematic on the modern stage.
There’s also some casual, background anti-Semitism in other plays; for the most part, it’s depicted rather than endorsed, but in at least one case it comes from a character the audience is clearly supposed to like and admire: Benedick’s remark in Much Ado that “if I do not take pity of [Beatrice] I am a villain; if I do not love her, I am a Jew.” Shakespeare doesn’t seem to have thought his audience would have seen anything wrong with this line. Most modern audiences, obviously, do (and it is generally cut in modern productions).
Other Jews? Assuming that “everyone” means “everyone except Jews” is an odd bias akin to saying things like “Americans were pretty much OK with slavery in the 1700s”, ignoring the fact that millions of African slaves were also Americans and they were not at all OK with slavery.
No. But, as read in its original Klingon, he was clearly anti Ferengi.
How can anybody know the mindset of somebody who writes fiction? Maybe he wrote from the PoV of an antisemite but wasn’t one himself. The fact that his work transcends the test of time and is taught and performed universally says more than whatever his feelings may have been towards a certain racial group. People just like to look for reasons to be offended I guess.
Actually that makes me laugh.
It’s fun to turn the argument around; in a world that was awash in slavery and ignorance the issue is whether Shakespeare was a hand-wringing, card carrying, hair shirt wearing “modern day” liberal.
A: who fucking knows and the question doesn’t make sense anyway.
Enough of the threadshitting. If you think the topic is stupid, don’t post about it and stay out of the thread.
It’s totally idiotic to say Shakespeare was anti-Semitic. Sure, Shylock has often been played/directed as a stereotype - but the actual *script *of Merchant of Venice very clearly goes directly *against *the main classic stereotypes.
You know the core stereotype of the cunning, underhanded Jew, all devious and sly? Shylock is the only main character in that play who never does anything devious. He, unlike everyone else, is constantly upfront. Everyone else is going behind people’s backs and stealing and splitting hairs and weaseling out of things and pretending to be something they’re not and playing tricks to mess each other about. Shylock makes a straight-up bargain and then sticks to it. The people who go all slippery and devious with the small print are the Christians.
There’s no way in hell that’s just accidental on Shakespeare’s part. Shakespeare didn’t do accidental, specially not with the very heart of the play.
And while we’re at it, you know the physical stereotype of the stooping, whining, obsequious Jew? Here’s Shylock:
[…] Moneys is your suit.
What should I say to you? Should I not say,
‘Hath a dog money? is it possible
A cur can lend three thousand ducats?’ Or
Shall I bend low and in a bondman’s key,
With bated breath and whispering humbleness,
Say this:
‘Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last;
You spurn’d me such a day; another time
You call’d me dog; and for these courtesies
I’ll lend you thus much moneys’?
‘Shall I bend low’ makes it clear not only that Shylock is aware of the stereotype of the stooping Jew, but that he is not in fact stooping. Same for ‘shall I […] in a bondman’s key, with bated breath and whispering humbleness, say this’: it’s absolutely clear both that Shylock is aware of the obsequious, whining stereotype, and that he isn’t doing it.
Again, there’s no way that’s accidental. Because they had very little rehearsal time, Shakespeare used the dialogue to give his actors clues on how to play the characters. A clue like that in the dialogue is deliberate. Anyone who ignores it to play, direct or imagine Shylock as stooping and fawning is forcing his own stereotypes onto the script.
That’s without even starting on the big speech. Or the fact that he makes it clear that Shylock’s vengefulness is directly caused by Christian cruelty.
Isn’t it Shylock’s daughter who figures out the “no blood” loophole in Shylock getting his pound of flesh? She’s still Jewish at that point in the play, IIRC, so it’s not only Christians looking at the small print.
But overall, your point is well made.
I don’t think Portia’s father is alive. At any rate, Portia is the one who disguises herself as a judge, not Jessica.
I thought it was Portia who noticed that. Lemme go check.
Probably my mistake - haven’t read the play since college.
No, that’s Portia. (Dressed up as a male lawyer.)
I think part of the problem is that we’re used to thinking of classical dramas, in particular, in terms of The Bad Guys and The Good Guys. If you only think in terms of the conventional pattern (Good Guy wants something, Bad Guy tries to fuck him over, Good Guy triumphs), then Bassanio and Antonio must be the good guys, right, and Shylock must be the villain - so we must be supposed to see everything Bassanio and Antonio do as ‘good’, and everything Shylock does as ‘evil’.
If you read the script without trying to force it into that pattern - just read what’s actually there - it’s much more complex, and it’s hard to argue that any of the main characters is being portrayed as ‘the force for good’ or ‘the force for evil’. They’re people.
I thought these points were quite useful in getting to grips with the Shylock character.
Fretful Porpentine
“So, I’d argue that Shakespeare does not depict Jews as inherently evil or despicable. He doesn’t, however, depict all religions as equally valid – there isn’t ever any real question that Christianity is supposed to be superior.”
Shakespear’s audience (Christian) would have thought of themselves as superior to Jews. So the play reflects his time.
eclectic wench
“Shylock is the only main character in that play who never does anything devious. He, unlike everyone else, is constantly upfront.”
If Shylock had simply be the stereotypical Jew, it would just have been another “The Jew of Malta” and we wouldn’t be really discussing it today. The fact that he does play the stereotypical Jew out for his “pound of flesh” but not in the stereotypical cartoonish way Jews were often portrayed in his day, gives his character more depth and a human quality.
I think, ultimately, Merchant has a Christian message. Shylock is the stereotypical Jew; stubborn, defiant, and ultimately with a rules-based mindset. The play is the triumph of Christianity over Judaism; the triumph of mercy over law What makes Shylock a villain in the play, and he is the villain in the play, is that he doesn’t accept Christ or the message of Christ. That’s the same reason Jessica, while Jewish, isn’t the villain, because she’s saved by her love for Lorenzo, which is enough to convert her. In Merchant, Jews aren’t condemned for being Jews, but for rejecting Jesus. This is also a dig on the Spanish and their persecution of the “New Christians”…the descendants of those Jews who converted to Christianity. And that’s seen in the text, where Lancelot torments Jessica, and her defense:
I expect that even many Jews of the time were probably antisemitic, though not of course in the same ways that Christians were. Certainly, many blacks in the age of slavery were racist against blacks. But no, not all of them in either case, and certainly there were a significant number of Jews who weren’t antisemitic. And probably at least some non-Jews, too, though they might have had to keep that secret.
This is as good analysis of this thread as is Chronos’ verdict of Shakespeare - it’s not good. And it was Chronos who stated - out of no where - that only “sane” people would hold the revisionist view. Others have mentioned Kilingons.
Until I spoke up uneducated revisionism prevailed in this discussion. Thankfully, more informed views have subsequently intervened.
I have attacked no one while helping to bring the discussion to firmer ground.
I cannot agree. The audience is supposed to have sympathy with Shylock. Even in the case of Jessica, her selling of his late wifes ring is supposed to be a bad thing.
Threadshitting is declaring the topic too stupid or wrong for discussion, which is actually what you did.
No one accused of attacking anyone and contrary discussion is not prohibited. You did not move the discussion forward; you tried to shut it down with your responses.
Any further discussion of my moderation should be taken to ATMB.