Talk:The Merchant of Venice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 Anti-semitism 2 date of creation 3 Discussion: flesh and blood 4 Bassanio, Antonio 5 Shylock - Villain or Victim 6 Edmund Kean's sympathetic portrayal of Shylock? 7 Two questionable statements 8 All ends happily? 9 Orson Welles film version 10 Statement about Judaism 11 References 12 Portia, Mistress of Her Own Destiny (and the ring "joke") 13 The sympathetic reading 14 Belmonte Calabro 15 Recent changes to "Religious interpretations"

[edit] Anti-semitism

The statement about the traits of Shylock being apt to describe a horse as well as a christian or a jew is not exactly true. First, although it is a bit of a technicality, horses do not have hands. On this point, the comparitive animal should be a primate. Second, no animal that I am aware of laughs like a human when tickled. -Ionesco writing as 209.69.41.130

IMHO, The Merchant of Venice is _not_ Anti-Semitic; the fact the Shylock is a Jew is merely incidental (unsigned)

But Wikipedia is designed to report not your humble opinion, but rather the opinion of critics. A substantial body of criticism refers to the plays' anti-Semitic tone, and could hardly be excluded from this article. -- Someone else 04:59, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(Article) It seems more likely that the speech is intended to emphasize Shylocks's bestial nature - the long list of traits Shylock describes Jews as sharing with Christians are purely physical - a horse shares them as much as a Jew. The only strictly human trait Shylock mentions in this speech is revenge.

I'm not sure I agree -- or that it is even the views of most critics -- that the "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech is meant to emphasize the bestial nature of Shylock. Consequently the article's assertion that we (the modern audience) view the play in radically different terms from how Shakespeare would want us to is highly contentious.

"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 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."

Look at the speech: "dimensions, senses, affections, passions" are all human traits. The later traits are basic, simple senses true, shared by animals, but the word "bestial" isn't the first thing that comes to mind when one hears this. Surely "revenge", though a human trait, is more "bestial" than the rest (one wouldn't exactly call a vengeful person humanistic)?

And I'm not sure horses do laugh like humans. Do any beasts show the quality to laugh?

Of course Shylock himself is being wrong in his conclusion--because Christians are clearly not allowed to take revenge (Matthew 5:38 - 39). But he wouldn't know that (having not read the NT)--a big dramatic irony.

I think the real dramatic irony is that - even though Christians are "not allowed" to take revenge, nevertheless they do anyway. Shakespeare was thus using Shylock as a mouthpiece to twit his audience (Christians all, in name anyway) for their hypocrisy. Ellsworth 20:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The contributor asserts that "the play retains its power on stage for audiences who perceive its central conflicts in terms radically different from the terms Shakespeare did" seemed to me patently off the mark, though the conclusion is right -- Shakespeare is a great playwright "an illustration of the subtlety of Shakespeare's characterizations and his greatness as a playwright.". I take issue with the fact that the article is suggesting Shakespeare is subscribing to a simple black-and-white notion of Semitism. In fact Shakespeare is painting a very complex picture of anti-Semitism--whatever one says some of the actions of the Christians in the play (Portia excepted) are hardly justifiable. Neither Christian nor Jew are wholly exonerated. Antonio himself also acted in a very unChristian-like way (see segment prior to extracted speech, contrast it with Matt 5:46-7--Shakespeare must know his Bible--the play is full of such references). The Merchant is clearly a problematic play (even Much Ado during this era is pretty inconclusive -- hinting to us the real world is much more complex than an onstage make-believe). A clear reference for this would come in the the later problem plays of his works.

In contrast to the above view, we could also argue that Shakespeare meant to subvert the Elizabethan notion of Jews as being plainly two-dimensional villains and does it in a play where, despite using Shylock as the villain, Shakespeare is clearly playing on and then subverting the traditional Jewish stereotype to demonstrate the shallowness of such a perspective.

It seems to me that rather than subscribing one notion as wholly true, we should place both ideas side by side and let the readers choose. It will at least balance the idea that the play is anti-semitic, long argued and never conclusively shown, which IMO is largely unproven. Mandel - May 10, 2004

That this play has real anti-semitic undertonnes in this play cannot really seriously be argued. This should be mentioned in any article on this play (and maybe we could have a whole article on this topic?) but does it need to be the main topic? I just read this article for the first time hoping to get some information on the play and it seems to me that the information on the actual play is just there for show and was rushed through so we could get to the discussion of anti-semitism (about 3/4 of this article is devoted to that). This is an intriguing play with deep plots and excellent character development. I would edit it myself if I knew more about the play so if anybody comes along that considers themselves an expert please expand on the information about the play. The world is a messed up place and we do a lot of evil things in it and I think we should try to focus on the positive whenever we can. --SDB 02:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sure that the article could use a lot of improvement in that respect, and I doubt anyone would resist it; it's a matter of someone doing the work. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there something else going on with Shylock and his relationship with the Christians: The exposure of double-standards on grounds of race? The Christians in the play pride themselves in their love and generosity towards each other but indulge in the ugliest possible hatred and viciousness when faced with Shylock - for no other reason than he is a Jew and so, presumably, expempt from normal standards of Christian behaviour. Similarly, Shylock is expected to take everything that is thrown at him by the Christians and not fight back ('Still have I borne it with a patient shrug,/For sufferance is the badge of all my tribe'). Look at how Salerio and Solanio respond to Shylock's statement that he will persue his bond with Antonio - 'Why, I am sure if he forfeit thou wilt not take his flesh. What's that good for?' - this after they have helped his daughter flee him, steal gold from him and after they have cruelly mocked him in the street. Shylock's speech about revenge is clear - A Christian is allowed to wrong a Jew and get revenge, so why should a Jew not do the same back? 'The villiany YOU teach me I will execute'. One of Shylock's most powerful arguments in the Trial Scene is the argument where he attacks the Christians' refusal to allow their slaves equal status to them. Shylock (and possibly, be extension, Shakespeare) challenges the Christians to reexamine their values and faith - he exposes their hypocrisies. They can do whatever they like to a Jew but a Jew is not allowed to do the same back. In terms of revenge - think of how many Christian characters in Elizabethan plays are driven by it - Hamlet, Vindice, Iago etc - and yet Shylock is expected to forgive and forget. Where Shakespeare parts company with Shylock is the intensity of his revenge. In the Tempest, his last words on revenge are clear - 'The rarer action is in virtue not in vengeance'. Shakespeare is against murder as a replacement of justice, but he shows in Shylock how the desire for murder can come from wholly human reasons of hurt, insult and persecution. Where the play is complex lies in Shakespeare's dangerous subtleties. If Shakespeare were an anti-semite he would hate all Jews, but neither Jessica or Tubal or, arguably, Shylock, are presented unsympathetically. Ultimately Shakespeare judges Shylock as a man and not a member of a race. He shows how discrimination towards Shylock on grounds of race (ie an massive act of denial of his individuality) turns him into someone who confuses injustice with a desire for bloody revenge. As an individual Shylock goes too far but as a member of a race he is a deeply wronged creature while at the same time it is because he has been treated as a member of a race and not an individual that he goes too far. Its exactly this kind of ambiguity and subtlety that makes us uncomfortable now in a post-Holocaust world. Is it not clear that had Shylock been treated with dignity and his individuality respected he would not do what he does? In the end, he is justified but still wrong. The answer is to root out the initial injustice, give Shylock his individuality. But by the time the crisis of the play happens its too late. ThePeg 12 July 2006

I removed the following from the "anti-Semitic Reading" section:

"English society in the 1600s was undeniably anti-Semitic."

There is no citation as to this comment and I could find nothing regarding anti-Semitism in England during the 1600's. If someone can locate a source, please post the citation and return the deleted text. Thank you. --Jtpaladin 19:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, do you really need a citation for the statement that a country in which Jews could not legally dwell being anti-Semitic? This should not be an even vaguely controversial statement. - Jmabel | Talk 05:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and just in case anyone should mistake your prior edit for a good-faith issue about level of sourcing, I see you added this utterly uncited material (which I have removed):

However, this is balanced by the very notion of the contract itself where Shylock was literally going to cut out a pound of flesh from Antonio thus committing murder. Shylock's contract was barbaric and by any sense had to be made void regardless as to what the other characters had to do in order to make Shylock either see the barbarity of the agreement or use other means to prevent its' fulfillment. Sadly, Shylock could not see the evil of this contract, as he was preparing to cut out Antonio's flesh, and thus the play can not be read in a way that makes Shylock appear sympathetic.

So, apparently, according to Jtpaladin, a claim in Wikipedia's narrative voice that "the play can not be read" in the manner that virtually every production in the last 150 years has presented it needs no citation, but a claim that a society where it was illegal to be a Jew was anti-Semitic does. In particular, Jacob Adler's reading of it—that Shylock wants the legal right of this power over Antonio so that he can magnimously fail to exercise it—is impossible. (Note that I am not saying that Adler's reading is an accurate portrayal of Shakespeare's intent, just a possible reading of the play, which is what according to Jtpaladin's text denies.) Also, on a much simpler level, apparently, according to according to Jtpaladin, a Shylock avenging genuine slights against himself cannot possibly be viewed sympathetically.

By the way, is there anywhere in the play where it is indicated that Shylock intends to take his pound of flesh from a part of the body where it would be fatal? - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. "Nearest the heart" "You must prepare your bosom for his knife" (working from memory so not sure if I've got those exact). I agree with your general conclusion about the added passage, though, which seems to be OR. AndyJones 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. That's what I get for not having re-read it in over 25 years.

Anyway, I have now restored the statement about Elizabethan anti-Semitism, with citation. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

im Not sure if someone already mentioned this, but from what i have heard, Jews were not allowed in england during that period of time (im not too sure if that is true either, but the english teacher looked old enough to witness it), therefore it is likely that shakespeare may have been uninformed of what the Jewish people were really like. This misinformation may have led him to beleive that jews were terrible people. any ideas on that matter? - [[User:Anroth|Anroth]

Yes, it is true. As I said to Jtpaladin, above: "Wow, do you really need a citation for the statement that a country in which Jews could not legally dwell being anti-Semitic?"

My short answer is, "Shakespeare had never been to Ancient Rome, either." My longer answer is, Shakespeare had probably about as broad a vision of humanity as any writer of his time (and of almost any time). Even his villains are usually quite complex people. Shylock is certainly the villain of this play, and certainly follows many of the conventions of a stage Jew in Elizabethan theatre (or in European theatre of that time), but he is an enormous complexification of the stereotype, to the point where it becomes controversial where Shakespeare's sympathies lay. He gets a fine soliloquy ("…Hath not a Jew eyes?…") that indicts the Christians in the play, though not as completely as he is indicted himself. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly take issue with the idea that you don't "need a citation for the statement that a country in which Jews could not legally dwell" is anti-Semitic. Given that these policies had nothing to do with public opinion - persecution of the Jews in England began with an absolute monarch in Edward I - statements such as "This reading of the play would certainly fit with the anti-Semitic beliefs of the majority of Shakespeare's audience" are highly questionable. There is no proof of this, the anti-Semitic policies carried out at this time were as much about state building and the necessity of a homogeneous population for the creation of a national identity as they were about explicit anti-Semitism and the idea that you can determine the preferences of a majority of citizens based on the policy of an absolute monarch is misguided at the best of times. I would advocate removing this particular phrase or at the very least adding a bit of moderation to the statement, it's presented as if it's a categorical fact that the majority of English citizens in 1600 were anti-Semites. blankfrackis 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. So you need a citation. A page from the Masterpiece theater site about this very play mentions that in 1593, the queen's physician Roderigo Lopez (a Sephardic Jew) was accused of trying to poison her. He "was convicted of treason, hung, and drawn and quartered" in 1594, which "led to an outbreak of anti-Jewish sentiment in the country." This is exactly the era of this play.- Jmabel | Talk 07:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] date of creation

written at an uncertain date between 1594 and 1597 - from a text by the british library: The creation of The Merchant of Venice can be dated between 1596 and 1598. Shakespeare must have written the play by the summer of 1598, since it was entered on the Stationers’ Register on 22 July 1598. Act 1 scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice contains an allusion to the ‘wealthy Andrew dock’d in sand’, which has been accepted as a reference to the San Andrés, a Spanish ship captured during the expedition to Cadiz in 1596. News of this exploit reached court by 30 July 1596, so Shakespeare could not have written The Merchant of Venice before that date. regards, High on a tree 22:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: flesh and blood

I have added some well-sourced material on interpretations of the part roughly 1847-1905, showing the evolution of the handling of Shylock.

I would like to add something that, to me, seems obvious, but I don't offhand have a source to cite for it. I notice that has not inhibited whoever wrote the first two paragraphs of the "Discussion", so perhaps I should just add it? I figured I'd check in here first and ask if anyone objects. What I want to add is:

Presumably, Shylock's writing a contract for a pound of flesh but omitting to mention blood was intended by Shakespeare to symbolize adherence to religious law (halakha), symbolized by the flesh, in the absence of the supposedly more spiritual values of Christianity, symbolized by the blood; furthermore, this omission of the blood may relate even more literally to the blood of Christ.

Unless there seems to be a consensus against this in the next 48 hours, I'll add this; if someone is aware of a citable author from whom similar comments can be sourced, all the better. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:52, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like "presumably"; "arguably" at most would be better. Better still would be "some critics have theorized", and best would be "critics such as [NAME] have argued". AJD 08:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Arguably" is fine and, as I remarked above, I would welcome citations; I don't have one. "Some critics have theorized" seems presumptuous and weasly without citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:52, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Shylock didn't mention blood because it did not occur to him, or to anyone else, that he needed to specific. That's the entire point of Portia's legal trick. Not only is it crackpotted to look for esoteric symbolical explanations for Shakespeare's plot devices, but Shakespeare didn't even come up with that plot element himself: it comes straight out of Giovanni Fiorentino's Il Pecorone, Shakespeare's main source for the play.68.118.61.219 19:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certainly I agree that the idea was not original with Shakespeare. And yes, on the surface level it functions as a legalistic quibble. But the notion of Jews as people of the law rather than the spirit was a standard medieval and Renaissance line of attack on Judaism, and the analogy of these to body and blood would not have been by any means novel. 68.118.61.219, I take it that your remark is an objection to this going in without clear citation? Do you feel that the first two paragraphs of this section should also be removed? They also strike me as uncited interpretation. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:13, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

As for the origin of the story when i first saw the play I recognized the legal trick Portia used from and old norse myth. It is in the story about how Loki got Thors hammer Mjollnir from two dwarfs, Brokk and Eitri. Loki lost a bet (look at the Brokk article for the details) that would have cost him his head, but argued that the dwarfs could not claim it because in doing so they would harm his neck. I have no idea if the two stories are connected in any way that is more than coincidental or due to the archetypal nature of the story. Then again, Shakespear was well-read and used old stories all the time (although I guess that Ovid was read more than the Edda). Gkhan 19:39, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

God bless the discussion page. It's in this place that the real human knowledge is recorded, and in the entry that the heuristic is proposed. Orthografer 05:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bassanio, Antonio

Cut from article, brought here for discussion:

Antonio, too, is a somewhat complex character; his unexplained depression—"I know not why I am sad"—and utter devotion to Bassanio has led some critics to theorize that he is in fact a closeted homosexual who is in love with his friend and is depressed because he can't have him. Bassanio too has been subject to much possible bisexual tendancies, especially pertaining to the Act IV Scene I, Antonio: "Say how I loved you" incomplete, Bassanio: "But life itself, my wife, and all the world....I would lose all, ay, sacrifice them all Here to this dvil, to deliver you."

Is there a citation for this? "Some critics" is not a citation, and claiming that a character "has been subject to... tendencies" is even less so. There may be something to this, but without a citation it looks suspiciously like original research. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That's not an original theory. Harold bloom, for one, explains Antonio's character that way in his book on Shakespeare. (anon 12 Aug 2005)

Well, that's closer to a citation. Has anyone got an acutal citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

See Shakespeare's article. The biography section. According to historians pederasty was widespread in many Italian city states during the time period and many believe the reason why he included the characters in the play was because, he, himself, was bisexual (most of his love sonnets are to a young man). The 2005 movie adaptation of the play with Al Pacino also interpreted it in a homosexual context, in some scenes the two are seen lying together on a bed and the boy kisses him on the lip. Draws a striking parallel with ancient Greek practices, since just as the play says, once the young man nears adulthood the older man helps him find a wife. 70.57.82.114 04:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is this as well: The reason for this is implied by Shakespeare and made clear by Radford: Antonio is in love with Bassanio, its from the famous critic Roger Ebert. 70.57.82.114 04:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• While Ebert is a popular film critic rather than a scholarly critic of literature—which is to say that his opinion on Shakespeare is not worth a great deal—at least these are citations. As to the homosexual interpretation of the sonnets, I agree with it, but I would concede (and hope you would, too) that it is not even close to universally accepted. Anyway, it sounds like you have some citations, I'd say put your material back in the article with what you've got, but a scholar with some knowledge of the period would cut a lot more weight than Roger Ebert. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

How about a citation in the form of an essay by W.H. Auden? In "Brothers & Others" (published in his essay collection The Dyer's Hand), Auden describes Antonio as "a melancholic who is incapable of loving a woman" and as "a man whose emotional life, though his conduct may be chaste, is concentrated upon a member of his own sex." He quotes a couplet from one of Shakespeare's Sonnets: "But since she pricked thee out for women's pleasure,/Mine be thy love, and thy love's use their treasure" and comments that these lines are "relevant" to the depiction of Antonio. "In any case, the fact that Bassanio's feelings are so much less intense makes Antonio's seem an example of that inordinate affection which theologians have always condemned as a form of idolatry, a putting of the creature before the creator." Auden regards the theme of usury in the play as a comment upon social relations in general in a mercantile society. That Shylock should seek to forfeit Antonio's life, and that Antonio should agree to this forfeit, suggests to Auden that they are both idolators who stand outside the normal bounds of society. There was, states Auden, a traditional "association of usury with sodomy" [i.e., sins against nature] for which Shakespeare "must have been familiar." InvisibleSun, August 24, 2005

Excellent! Please edit accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dropped this sentence from first paragraph of "Pederasty" section:

In the 2004 movie adaptation with Al Pacino this aspect of the play is made clear.

The featurette contained in the Region 1 DVD has excerpts of an interview with Irons, who insists that he did not "play Antonio gay". Irons also makes some very cogent points about male friendship in the Elizabethan age, which is very much different from the way it is now, when (paraphrasing Irons) "you only have 'mates' that you drink with at the pub or perhaps go to the football together". Ellsworth 14:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

How stupid does Irons think people are? The theory about the Antonio/Bassanio relationship was not formed by comparing it to modern friendship, it was formed by comparing it to the friendships in Shakespeare's other plays.68.95.64.112 06:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shylock - Villain or Victim

Is Shylock really a villain or a victim. The "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech shows both sides of the story. Shylock is bullied by Antonio in the Rialto. But is Shylock justified for his taking a pound of Antonio's flesh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.139.171 (talk • contribs) 6 Nov 2005.

My main answer to that is "do your own homework". But beyond that: much of Shakespeare's greatness is that his characters aren't one-dimensional: flawed heroes, villains with redeeming features or who have themselves genuinely suffered, and everything in between. This gives readers, directors, and actors a lot of scope to reach their own interpretation. Think of it like a musical standard: is "Mack the Knife" really a slow murder ballad or a swinging jazz tune? Answer: it's a rich text, subject to multiple interpretations. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edmund Kean's sympathetic portrayal of Shylock?

"Jacob Adler writes in his memoir that the tradition of playing Shylock sympathetically began with Edmund Kean in 1847," says this article, yet the Edmund Kean article says he died in 1833. Anyone have the Adler reference cited in the article so they can double-check that? Chuck 22:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have it at hand - I was working from a library copy. If no one weighs in the next few days, ping me on my talk page, and I'll go see if I can borrow it again. Also, FWIW, Adler may have been mistaken on a date, it wouldn't be unprecedented. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yup, I quoted him accurately; the mistake was presumably either his or Rosenfeld's. Adler, Jacob, A Life on the Stage: A Memoir, translated and with commentary by Lulla Rosenfeld, Knopf, New York, 1999, ISBN 0-679-41351-0, p.341. - Jmabel | Talk 02:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In my copy of the camrige schhols edition of the merchant, (ISBN 0-521-42504-2):

"In the nineteenth century Edmund Kean broke away from this widely accepted viewv[of skylock being a villian] by portaying him as intelligent and vulnerable." LukeSimm 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And again, in a handout I have, from ISBN 0-521-00816-6:

"Macklin played him as a terrifyying villian, brodding and malevolent, determined on revenge. That conception of Shylock because the aceptble style of performance untill 1814, when Edmund Kean transformed the role."

I hope this helps. LukeSimm 09:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So that would be Rob Smith, Cambridge Student Guide to The Merchant of Venice? Page number would be helpful, but I'll cite that.

It still doesn't tell us whether the error in the date was Alder's/Rosenfeld's or mine. I'm going to assume for now that I transcribed correctly, but if someone has a copy of the book, please do check. - Jmabel | Talk 04:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two questionable statements

While rewriting one section, I found 2 comments that I have some doubts about. Evidence is needed if they are to be returned.

1. The play, which seems to have been popular when originally written... - Where is the evidence for this?
2. Shakespeare's audiences probably did view the play in that light - some references from the 17th century suggest that it was regarded as effective anti-Semitic propaganda. - what references are these?

The Singing Badger 14:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really have good citations for you (and I didn't write the passages), but I believe that what is there is probably accurate. Merchant was one of Shakespeare's plays written for a commercial audience and performed in a South Bank theater, not one of his plays for an elite audience at the Inns of Court. FWIW, [1] has "The first Shylock was a comic butt, who may have appeared in a red fright wig and a false nose, the standard signs of Jewishness on the Elizabethan stage. Shylock was played as a comic figure until the mid-eighteenth century, when the actor Charles Macklin transformed him into a villain. Only in the nineteenth century did Shylock become a sympathetic or a tragic figure, masterfully portrayed by Edmund Kean in a performance that impressed Romantic authors like Coleridge and William Hazlitt." But someone who is more of a scholar of this and has books on the topic at hand may be able to give you a better citation; most of my knowledge of Elizabethan performance comes from college 3 decades ago.

Which is to say, I'm sure I haven't answered your request, but I hope I've at least made a prima facie case that this is probably accurate content. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All ends happily?

"…all ends happily…" Like, we are supposed to be rejoicing at the salvation of Shylock's poor Jewish soul? I don't think any major performance has approached the play that way in about 150 years.

I didn't look closely at the recent rewrite that brought us this, but I hope that a few people will, and that they will sift this and the earlier version and perhaps synthesize what might be best in each of them. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Just do an edit. Mandel 06:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed "all ends happily". I still suspect it would be worth someone's effort to look at what was removed in that abovementioned edit, and see if some of it should be salvaged, but I have no interest in doing it myself. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

"Poor Jewish soul"? - a person who schemed to cut off the flesh of a fellow Venetian, however, ought still be considered an antagonist. Yes, the play is still considered a comedy. Like we should be feeling upset over Don John or Malvolio's plight in Much Ado or Twelfth Night? Such "outsiders" always occur in Shakespeare. I've did a better edit. Mandel 15:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I could imagine playing Twelfth Night as The Tragedy of Malvolio: except that no one sympathetic to Malvolio would probably ever be involved in theater. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orson Welles film version

Some time around 1970 or so, Welles with financial backing from French TV [just like with The Imortal Story from a year or two earlier] filmed his version of The Merchant of Venice actually in Venice. Production went well, mostly, although money problems began to show up towards the end causing them to have to move out of Venice to at least one or more Italian fishing villages, but they got the film completed. This is where things get strange, as near as I or anyone else can tell the last reel of the film, 15-20 minutes, was stolen! By who or why is a mystery. The most common reason given is a disgruntled crewmember angry about the pay situation. Needless to say it has never been released. Several scenes from it are presented in the 1995 documentary “Orson Welles: One Man Band”. -- LamontCranston 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement about Judaism

According to Judaism, the laws set out by God were designed to make people happy: not to be ritualistic, cumbersome, etc. By breaking God's law, (according to this theory), you are really just harming yourself directly and in this life, so forgiveness from God is irrelevant.

Can someone cite a good source that this was the case for Judaism around the time that the play was written. Even in biblical times, there were several different popular modes of thought about the law, and stoning was the order of the day. Obviously modern judaism is different, however I am wondering if the assertions in this quote can be sourced. - JustinWick 00:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point here is that we tend to think now of Shylock as an Ashkenazi (East European) Jew while we know that had Shakespeare known any Jews in Elizabethan times they would almost certainly have been Sephardi Jews from Spain or Portugal. Their value systems are subtly different. We should be very careful of making easy judgements of how Jews were seen in those days. We know that Jews were pretty much forced to convert in those days but we forget that interest and study in the Kaballah after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Portugal was at its highest in Shakespeare's time. Indeed the Franciscan Friar Giordi had written an important treatise or two on the relationship between Christianity and the Kaballah around Shakespeare's time which was in circulation in England then. Where did this Friar live? Venice. ThePeg 12 July 2006

[edit] References

Which reminds me: other than my citations of Adler's memoir, and the one just given, nothing here is cited. Not the various interpretations related to anti-Semitism, not the "sympathetic reading". Addition of citations would definitely strengthen this article.

[edit] Portia, Mistress of Her Own Destiny (and the ring "joke")

What the hell is this? It adds nothing to the article and is possible vandalism. Without sources, it should promptly be removed. Does someone strongly disagree here? -Abscissa 19:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a tiny element of usefulness in there somewhere. I'll see if I can rewrite it. The Singing Badger 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The sympathetic reading

I have changed the sentence "Shylock's 'trial' at the end of the play is a shambles,.." to "Shylock's 'trial' at the end of the play is a mockery of justice,...". "Shambles" is certainly the wrong word, and "mockery of justice" is better, in my opinion. Hi There 08:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belmonte Calabro

I'm not sure if Shakespeare really ment Belmonte Calabro when saying that Portia lives in Belmont(e). Belmonte Calabro is several 100km away from Venice... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.112.16.84 (talk • contribs) 15 September 15, 2006.

I think that was the place that was meant, as Bassanio takes a boat to go there, and needs some time to get back to Venice too. Also Belmonte Calabro was named Belmont before italian unification. 80.200.50.154 09:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes to "Religious interpretations"

Recent dubious changes, possibly original research; I was half inclined to just revert, but thought I'd bring it here for discussion instead, since some of this may have substance and be citable (though not cited).

• 'In Christianity, forgiveness comes easily, generally at any time, to those who "truly repent"; this repentance comes about primarily through Jesus, and does not involve any specific ritual,' was changed to 'In Christianity, like in Judaism forgiveness comes only to those who "truly repent"; this repentance comes about primarily through Jesus, and does not involve any specific ritual.' (bolding mine). I do not know what this means to say. It seems to say at the very least that in Judaism, also, repentance comes about primarily through Jesus, which is ridiculous. It also makes a nonsense of the passage that follows. The paragraph is now arguing with itself.
• 'Shylock and the Duke know the law is for the functioning of society' became:

  This argument fails on its face though because forgivness is not freely available at anytime, but rather only when someone truly desires it. Forgivness can only come from God when subjectivly asked, not when a simple outward expression is made. Someone can not steal, outwardly say they are sorry and be forgiven unless they subjectivly desire to be saved by God. Also "repentance" carries the conotation of changed behavior. Thus, someone who is forgiven will not break the law again. Shylock and the Duke know the law is for the functioning of society, but Shylock breaks it anyway

Besides the many misspellings, this all seems very POV and uncited. However, what was around it was also uncited. Still, this seems state theological arguments as simple fact, with no attribution even to a tradition of faith. This cannot be right. Is there anything here worth salvaging?

• Added " Still it can hardly be moral for Shylock to demand a pound of flesh from Antonio. Shylock knows this will kill Antonio, but demands it anyway, which seriously undermines this theory." Again, argumentation/opinion with no citation, again making a paragraph argue with itself.
• "Many actors who are trained in early modern drama will, for the above reason, identify the Merchant of Venice as not an anti-Jewish play, but an anti-Christian play", which needed and didn't have, a citation, was turned into "Some actors who are trained in early modern drama will, for the above reason, identify the Merchant of Venice as not an anti-Jewish play, but an anti-Christian play. This is not reflected in the history of the production and is a recent phenomena," which has all of the previous problems, plus a grammatical mess ("is a… phenomena").

If the old text had been well-cited, I would simply have reverted. Perhaps this will be a motivation for the people who have worked on this part of the article to turn the collection of arguments and counter-arguments into something decently cited and making clear who says what. - Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)