Shakespeare: Bigot Or Humanitarian?

Diana Barnard

Final Essay

Strickland, ENG 378

Shakespeare: Bigot or Humanitarian?

Shakespeare is a world-renowned author, considered by many to be one of the greatest of writers in the history of the English language. Shakespeare’s works are malleable, which makes them moldable to nearly every society and every situation, including the 21st century. One of Shakespeare’s greatest writing traits was his ability to combine comedy and tragedy along with three or more sub-plots all into one play. Shakespeare used this ‘juggling’ ability to his great advantage in almost all of his plays. One play in particular, The Merchant of Venice, still leaves audiences and critics puzzled. It is difficult to clarify the politics of this particular play because it seems as though every production of the play is different and allows for individual interpretation. Because of this intricate complexity, the play has been undecidedly tossed around between Semitic and anti-Semitic for centuries.

The Merchant of Venice was probably written solely with the idea of portraying Jews as bad people, to put it lightly. Historical evidence shows that Christians hated Jews for centuries before Shakespeare even wrote Merchant. In “A Distant Mirror” by Barbara W. Tuchman, this subject is addressed in detail. The history of hate began when the early Christian Church split from its roots of Judaism. Christians had to reject Jews to ensure the survival of their new endeavor as a separate entity. Jews were an insult to the new church because they did not believe that Jesus Christ was the savior of the world.

Laws were made that deliberately stripped Jews of their rights as citizens. At first, Jewish people were apathetic to Christians as well, so the new laws were welcoming to them because they did not want to be a part of a Christian society anyway. It wasn’t very long until Christians started to pose threats upon Jews and strip them of everything they owned, including dignity, by use of the notion that Jews were slaves of the Church. The only reason Jews were still holding a place in society was because of their role as moneylenders. This historical account makes it easier to grasp the concept of The Merchant of Venice as it was written in the late 16th century.

Another element to be observed is the stage history of the play. It seems as though the argument of anti-Semitic ideas within the play relies upon the character of Shylock, the moneylender. This is in a way ironic because Shylock only appears in three scenes throughout the play, but his character is historically the most famous, or infamous,as the case may be.

In 1741, Charles Macklin played Shylock in a production of Merchant at the Drury Lane Theatre. Until Macklin, recorded history shows a general portrayal of Shylock as a comedic character, one that was directed to act like a fool. However, Macklin changed this stereotype by portraying a Shylock that was “unyieldingly malignant,” and was full of “savage fierceness, a deadly spirit of revenge.” In the first rehearsal of this production, Macklin acted fierce and was rejected by his fellow players. Macklin still wanted to portray Shylock his way, so at rehearsals, he read his lines one way, and rehearsed his lines alone in the way he wanted them to be. At the first performance, his fellow players were astonished, as was the audience. Nonetheless, the majority welcomed Macklin’s ‘fierce’ Shylock. This Shylock became the stereotypical Shylock of the 18th century. (Gross, 110-111)

The tables turned again when, in 1880, Henry Irving played a Shylock that stood as an emblem of a persecuted race. Irving had played in several other roles in previous Merchant productions, but changed his mind on the politics of the play when he encountered a Jewish merchant being persecuted in the marketplace of North Africa. Understanding both self-restraint and the breakdown of self-restraint was a major part of the new Shylock. Subtle sarcastic humor would have to fit in the role as well. Irving was able to portray this Shylock in a believable way, and most importantly, was able to transform Shylock into a victim of Christian society. (Gross, 146)

Since the Holocaust of World War II, The Merchant of Venice has become even more criticized for its anti-Semitic characteristics. During the war, two major performances of Merchant were given, one portraying Shylock as a villain that was angry at all Christians, and the other, a more balanced character that was impressively angry, but still held his pride. Post-war Shylocks generally seem to be played Jewish actors. This in itself adds to the part of Shylock being portrayed onstage as a sympathetic character treated poorly by the Christians. (Gross, 327)

In 1970, Johnathan Miller produced a version of Merchant set in the late Victorian period that attempted to neutralize the potential horrors of Shylock’s bond and focus more on social acceptance of Jews despite the bigotry of the Christian characters. Miller achieved this by using tricks like omitting Shylock’s “I hate him for he is a Christian” speech, by making scenes with Bassanio and Portia very lush and overtly important, and the casket scene with Bassanio gave clear indications by other cues onstage to choose the ‘lead’ casket. Olivier, who played Shylock in this production, portrayed a man who tried to imitate the Christians and become identical to every other businessman in the play. By doing this, Shylock becomes a part of common humanity and stresses the attitude that Jews are no different than any other human group. Miller was one of the first directors to use this effective way of producing The Merchant of Venice. (Gross, 327-329)

Upon learning the production history of the play, and using prior knowledge of religious history, two main positions have been commonly adopted in relation to the question of anti-Semitism and The Merchant of Venice. The first argument claims that Merchant is without a doubt an anti-Semitic work of literature. The text reveals enough evidence of intent to exhibit Shylock as an inhuman scoundrel by using lines like, “I hate him for he is a Christian” and, about Antonio, “Hates any man the thing he would not kill?” Antonio and Bassanio have retort in calling Shylock a “devil”, and “inexorable dog.” This claim also argues that Shakespeare was purposely trying to portray Shylock, a stereotypical Jew, as bent on satisfying his lust to shed Christian blood with his deed for “a pound of human flesh.” This aspect also labels the historical image of Jew as a murderer. The abuse of the Jew as usurer in the play brings more evidence to the argument of bigotry. Overall, these claims reflect Shylock as less of a man, and more as the cultural image of Jew, which is indefinitely what Shakespeare was aiming for. (Nature..)

The other side of the argument is that Merchant aims to destroy the idea of anti-Semitism and that Shakespeare should be commended for his work as a great humanitarian for resisting traditional Elizabethan culture. Furthermore, Shakespeare actually emphasizes Shylock’s character as a man, rather than his identity as a Jew, and as a man who hates and bleeds as does any Christian. The premise of this argument lies in the famous “Hath Not a Jew” speech (III, I, 59-70). The problem with this side of the argument is that while a few elements of the play do invoke a certain sort of sympathy towards Shylock, the rest of the play counteracts this sympathy. With the disappointment Shylock finds in his daughter for her elopement with a Christian, his need for following through with a contract rather than taking three times the money owed, and his overall bitterness toward the other characters, Shylock comes off as being brutish and hateful towards everything outside of himself. (Nature..)

Both sides present valid arguments against each other. It is difficult to decide which argument is correct. The final decision seems to be one that is left up to each individual who encounters The Merchant of Venice. One of the beauties of Shakespeare’s works is the open-ended interpretation that allows those who encounter it to be free to think what they will.

The aspect of bigotry seems to be a problem of its own in the instance of Merchant, so teaching this material to young adults in a school setting becomes even more complicated. In some schools, it has been banned from the curriculum altogether. The play was eliminated from the curricula of high schools in Buffalo and Manchester, N.Y. In 1931,a group of Jewish parents in Brooklyn, N.Y. went to court claiming that the assignment of Shakespeare's play to senior high school literature classes violated the rights of their children to receive an education free of religious bias. It was also banned from classrooms in Midland, Michigan in 1980 and from the ninth-grade classrooms of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario schools, until the Ontario Education Ministry or Human Rights Commission ruled whether the play was anti-Semitic. (peachnet)

The play has been banned from communities for the same reason. In 1995, when a community group in Santa Cruz, California put on a production of Merchant, some community members protested because the play supposedly ‘authorized the idea of hate and bigotry within their community.’ In each case, it is up to the teachers, producers, and actors, respectively, to pull off the play and it’s multiple plot, complex characters, and ambiguous ideas without causing a major uproar.

One teacher in the Boston, Massachusetts area, Mary Ellen Dakin, has come up with a way to teach The Merchant of Venice without focusing expressly on its anti-Semitic overtones. Dakin admits she is still uncomfortable with teaching this particular play. She recalls her understanding of the play in a delightfully cautious synopsis:

“There is the brooding merchant, Antonio, so free with

his ducats and his Christian self-righteousness; the

enigmatic Portia, whose mercy somehow seemed strained;

and Shylock, literature’s “Jew”, tottering on the wire of a stereotype, then falling (or was he pushed?) away from his own humanity.”

Dakin talks about the struggle she went through to answer her own questions on the play, and how she was able to teach on a subject about which even she was considerably confused. She started out by posing several questions to her students, and assuring them the questions would be answered during their course of study on the play. Some of the questions included “Was Shakespeare anti-Semitic?” and if so, “ Have all audiences, directors, and casts been anti-Semitic as well?” She was answered with a reasonable “no” so the question then, was “How?”

The first quest was to place the students in the midst of a “moral lottery” where they would determine the connotations associated with the ‘gold’, ‘silver’, and ‘lead’ caskets placed before them. Dakin’s “Venetian society” overwhelmingly favored the ‘gold’ casket, so her first challenge was to try and change the attitudes of her students and their preconceived notion of gold being a symbol of victory and wealth.

The first assignment was to pick a well-known person and write a poem about them that measured their worth within the context of the three caskets. Examples of the people the students picked include OJ Simpson for “gold”; Colin Powell for “silver”; and Mother Theresa and Bill Cosby tied for “lead”. The students seemed to be getting the idea of the project by the second day, so they were all put to a greater challenge. The class was divided into three groups and given a scene to work on. The object was to come to a clear understanding of the scene and, eventually, act it out in the context of society at a given point in history. Dakin chose Elizabethan England, Nazi Germany, and The American Renaissance as her three major phases of Shylock. The three scenes chosen were the three scenes in which Shylock was the central character. The objective of this was “to determine how The Merchant of Venice, in spite of and at times because of its anti-Semitic elements, has managed to appeal to audiences universally for 400 years.”

What Dakin’s students ended up discovering was nothing near what she had expected. Each group was to characterize their society as gold, silver, or lead. It turned out that none of the societies could be characterized as “lead.” The first society, Elizabethan England was categorized as a “silver” society, and Shylock was portrayed as a comic villain. The group who worked on the Nazi Germany era characterized their society as “gold” upon the premise that everything may have looked perfect on the outside, but inside was a very corrupt system. This society’s Shylock was portrayed as a helpless victim of circumstance. The final group, the American Renaissance was labeled a “silver” society as well. Their Shylock was portrayed as a threat to the Americans. The idea of Foreign invasion was a prime feature in their portrayal.

Concluding the lesson, Dakin pointed out to the students that none of the societies researched were worthy of the “lead” inscription. Dakin points out that each time she teaches Merchant, she expects her students will come up with different responses. Every time she teaches it, she learns and discovers new ideas and insight into the play. Dakin finishes her article by quoting the “lead” inscription- “Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath.” She believes this was the challenge of her class project, and the play itself. She says, “It is, I believe, what Shakespeare asks of us in The Merchant of Venice.” (Dakin)

Dakin’s lesson plan relies on the malleability of Shakespeare. With her lesson plan, she managed to dance around the political argument of The Merchant of Venice, and avoid the common controversial attitudes of both parents and students. There is no question that Shakespeare is a controversial political issue. Charles Marowitz, an acclaimed stage director and theatre critic, talks about the correlation between Shakespeare and politics in his book, Roar of the Canon. In the final chapter, Marowitz raises the issue of “How to Rape Shakespeare.” He addresses the issue of malleability in Shakespeare’s works. He uses this title to make a joke out of the perversion of Shakespeare’s work in today’s society. He adds a disclaimer to this in saying that the acknowledgement of rape degrades its victim of dignity, while the rapist finds an element of pleasure in the act. He says, “Raping Shakespeare’s plays at least treats them like living objects.” (181) Marowitz, having “raped” Shakespeare a few times himself, agrees that the change must be done to allow for its acceptance into modern societies. “Each faction finds in Shakespeare ample justification for [its] own position. As with the Bible, the Shakespearean scripture can be quoted to prove whatever propositions are being advocated at any given time and, as with politics, the values are temperament of the different parties and are usually irreconcilable.” Marowitz goes on to say that Shakespeare authored a ‘constitution’ of sorts, a piece of work that has been interpreted according to each individual encountering it for centuries. Marowitz argues that The Merchant of Venice is not a play about money, religion, or ‘nuptial lotteries’, but an attempt to balance romance, comedy and tragedy in a single play. Marowitz points out Shakespeare’s failure in this attempt, saying that the tragedy heavily outweighs the other two.

Given Shakespeare’s popularity, many problems will continue to arise surrounding the learning process and productions of his works. There is no simple answer as to whether or not The Merchant of Venice should be considered solely anti-Semitic or if it should be praised for being a tale that was beyond its time in trying to counteract bigotry. The history of the play has shown its share of ups and downs over the past four centuries and the anti-Semitic argument has never remained the same.

The argument of whether or not Merchant should be included into school curricula is tough as well, but generally speaking, the purpose of school is to learn about all different types of ideas and themes that one may encounter in the ‘real world.’ Since this is the case, obviously nothing should be omitted from any classroom. There are ways to handle these situations, as was pointed out in Dakin’s lesson plan. If the subject matter seems too intense for any audience, there are methods of toning this down. Focusing more on the subplots of Merchant is skirting the issue, but if the truths escape somewhere within, then a major accomplishment has been achieved.

Bibliography

1. Dakin, Mary Ellen. Shakespeare Magazine. “Three Scenes, Three Societies, Three Shylocks.” Archive article. Accessed @

2. Gross, John. Shylock: A Legend and Its Legacy. Simon and Schuster. New York, NY. 1992. pp.

110, 111, 146, 327, 329

3. Nature of Anti-Semitism: Religious vs. Racial. access date 7/22/02

1. Marowitz, Charles. The Roar of the Canon: Kott and Marowitz on Shakespeare. Applause Theatre & Cinema Books. New York, NY. 2001. pp. 53-55,164-181.

1. Tuchman, Barbara. A Distant Mirror. Electronic Reserve Text. accessed 7/26/02 from

1. Banned book website