Drama: M of V / 22.4.2018

[french frank]

... possibly André

Yes, 'im

[Conchis]

Far too much critical attention is paid to this minor Shakespeare play.

The reason for the continued interest is the treatment of Shylock - a minor role in term of stage time. Any production that attempts to portray him as a sympathetic character will come migthtily adrift (as did a late nineties RSC one with Philip Voss in the part) because there is nothing remotely likeable about him as written. Nor is there anything to be said for the antogonist Christians, though I think it is a nice touch to have Jessica ignored by her new 'family'.

The most convincing interpretation of the role of Shylock I've seen was Olivier's assumption (televised in the seventies) where the jew was a rich parvenu, desperate to be accepted by Christian society: an approach that instantly brings to mind the likes of Robert Maxwell (or even the not exactly Jewish Mohammed Al Fayad).

[french frank]

Any production that attempts to portray him as a sympathetic character will come migthtily adrift (as did a late nineties RSC one with Philip Voss in the part) because there is nothing remotely likeable about him as written.

That seems to me to be a rather sweeping statement. I can't see that the question of whether he is 'likeable' is relevant. Antisemitism was rife throughout the Middle Ages, into the Renaissance and beyond. 'Unlikeability' in a character can be the result of mistreatment, as well as the cause.

[jean]

I don't think likeable is the point. We should see Shylock's humanity and his dignity, and we should understand why he is vindictive.

And that is all in Shakespeare's text, without any doctoring (though in the production I mentioned earlier, the one line I noticed was cut was Shylock's I hate him for he is a Christian. But even then, why would he not hate Antonio?

I taught the play many times to classes where more than half the students were Jewish, and I never felt any need to apologise on Shakespeare's behalf.

[Conchis]

I don't think Shylock is dignified at any point: he is a nasty piece of work - a man who has got rich by ruthlessly exploiting others. And, so he tells us in his opening soliloquy, he is proud of his dubious achivements ('my well-won thrift/Which he (Antonio) calls 'interest''). There is little to suggest he regards his own daughter anything more than a chattel, to be kept under lock and key along with the rest of his treasures. He is a nasty, mean-spirited tycoon - 'the man that hath not music in hs soul' to the final detail. And he is prepared to commit murder to prove a point. Not much dignity in that, methinks!

This doesn't mean that we don't sympathise with him - for we surely do when he is taunted by the 'Salads' and we may feel that his final punishment is out of proportion to anything he deserved (but is it really?). I have seen the Court scene played effectively with 'Balthasar' almost pleading with Shylock not to demand his bond and thus force her to play her winning card.

The final act is the most problematic of the play - are we meant to forgive the Christians and let them go on their (rich) ways? I've never really understood it - but suspect that Shakespeare (or whoever actually wrote the play) was passing judgement on them all when gave the last word to the virulent anti-semite Gratiano and his obscene joke.

[greenilex]

Sorry, at risk of repeating myself the Merchant is meant to be a comic satire which lampoons every character evenhandedly and sets the contemporary London Rialto by the ears. All our problems come from taking the thing seriously...

[jean]

I don't think Shylock is dignified at any point: he is a nasty piece of work - a man who has got rich by ruthlessly exploiting others...

The Christians have only themselves to blame for that, allowing themselves by a convenient and hypocritical sleight of hand to avoid the proscription on usury.

But to see the play as purely a 'comedy' (probably not Shakespeare's own designation) causes more problems than it solves.

[Conchis]

The Christians have only themselves to blame for that, allowing themselves by a convenient and hypocritical sleight of hand to avoid the proscription on usury.

But to see the play as purely a 'comedy' (probably not Shakespeare's own designation) causes more problems than it solves.

The play lacks humour of any kind: notoriously, it features Shakespeare's least 'funny' clown.

It's unclear (read: doubtful) that the person who wrote M of V ever met a Jew face to face. Usury was one of the few things a Jew could legitimately make a living out of in the period in which the play is set. This is not a point that is made in the play, afair, and I've no idea whether a contemporary audience will have been aware of the fact.

Arnold Wesker once made the (amazingly egotistical, on the surface) claim that M of V should not be performed unless it was paired in repertory with his own 'version' of the story The Merchant (whcih I've never seen, or read).

[jean]

But the great thing about Shakespeare is that his humanity is such that he transcends what he might be supposed to have personal knowledge of.

Forget how the play is classified. Read the text.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But the great thing about Shakespeare is that his humanity is such that he transcends what he might be supposed to have personal knowledge of.

- "transcends" is a much-over(ab)used word, but here it is completely appropriate.

This might be useful/interesting re Jews in Tudor England (relevant to Marlowe's Jew of Malta and other playwrights of the time, too):

https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/how-were-the-jews-regarded-in-16th-century-england

[french frank]

Arnold Wesker once made the (amazingly egotistical, on the surface) claim that M of V should not be performed unless it was paired in repertory with his own 'version' of the story The Merchant (whcih I've never seen, or read).

Would that be 'Shylock' which was on Radio 3 some years back, and is now on YouTube?

The thing is, theatre isn't real life: it's drama which you either enter into or you don't. If you do, it will move you; if you don't, you will have all sorts of objections.

[DracoM]

Shak was writing in the London of late-ish 1590s- early 1600s, so I would contest the notion that he would not have come across Jews. London was a major but small trading centre, tightly packed, very crowded, noisy and cosmopolitan.
And certainly, the 'Christians' do not come out of this play well either.

Fully agree about the puzzling last Act. It really feels as if Shakespeare is saying 'a plague on both your houses.'
Or words to that effect.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Shak was writing in the London of late-ish 1590s- early 1600s, so I would contest the notion that he would not have come across Jews. London was a major but small trading centre, tightly packed, very crowded, noisy and cosmopolitan.

But isn't it true that between the Edict of Expulsion (1290) - part of a Europe-wide series of anti-semitic policies that encouraged Jews to settle in Venice in the Middle Ages - and Cromwell's overturning of the Edict in 1657, practising Jews weren't a feature of Shakespeare's London? It's not "impossible" that Shakespeare met any, but I think it is unlikely - considering the nastily anti-semitic texts of plays by his contemporaries - that they would have welcomed a playwright without suspicion.

[french frank]

But as with most of Shakespeare's plays, he didn't invent the stories. He had source material of various kinds, and I suppose to some extent he reflected 'orthodox' contemporary themes, regardless of his personal knowledge and experience.

[DracoM]

But isn't it true that between the Edict of Expulsion (1290) - part of a Europe-wide series of anti-semitic policies that encouraged Jews to settle in Venice in the Middle Ages - and Cromwell's overturning of the Edict in 1657, practising Jews weren't a feature of Shakespeare's London? It's not "impossible" that Shakespeare met any, but I think it is unlikely - considering the nastily anti-semitic texts of plays by his contemporaries - that they would have welcomed a playwright without suspicion.

But, honestly, do you write a play totally centred around Jews, with all maner of jeers / jokes / serious examinations of a culture that few in the audience - ahem...a LONDON audience - would know about? Surely not.

I mean, a commercial non-starter for a players group always keen to make money? If the audience don't 'get it', then word will get round about this weird play about...who? ....and they just don't cross London Bridge to pay to enter, do they?