Talk:Shylock

American or English?

Does Wikipedia use Americanese throughout? I'd rather the second par use 'practising' instead of 'practicing'.

Untitled

Elements of the Character "While Shakespeare almost certainly intended Shylock to be an anti-semitic caricature" ???

I don't think Shakespeare meant any character to be a caricature, and Shylock in particular is portrayed much more sympathetically than his contemporaries would have. This section needs to be rewritten.

No character a caricature? In the same play, Merchant of Venice, what are the Prince of Morocco and the other foreign suitors for Portia's hand if not caricatures?

They're not charicatures, just small parts. ThePeg

Whatever Shakespeare intended, he created the most powerful negative stereotype of a Jew in literature. The picture of the money-lending Jew with his knife, poised to gouge out the heart of the noble Christian Antonio, has been used with great effect by anti-Semites ever since. (See for example, John Gross 'Shylock His Legend and Legacy,' Leslie Fiedler's 1940s article in Commentary, "What shall we do about Fagin?' etc.)British Labour Party hacks briefly used "Shylock" in 2005 as a way to attack the Conservative leader Michael Howard, of Jewish descent, and promptly denied any anti-Semitic intent. (See BBC News Online) The biggest problem with Shylock is that his bloodthirsty hatred of Christians viscerally connects with fear and hatred of Jews in medieval Europe, where they were periodically accused of killing Christian children and even of using the victim's blood in Passover matzos, as a prelude to pogroms. (See Chaucer's Prioress's Tale, Malamud's The Fixer, etc.) Liberals see the play as a plea for tolerance, which it is at one level: the jew-baiting by the Christian majority and the forced conversion leave a modern audience uncomfortable. But by making the Jew a compelling bogeyman, Shakespeare did generations of Jews no favors.

Isaac Asimov in his Guide to Shakespeare points out that the name "Shylock" is totally fictitious and has never been used by a real person. Das Baz, 7 April 2006, 10:26 AM.

Why I think Shylock is intended to be good

A) The Jew, in Shakespeare's time, was like the witch in Grimm fairy tales. They were the stereotypical bad guys. However, Shakespeare makes Shylock an actual person, whose motives are not that he is Jewish, but that others have been so horrible to hime on account of he's Jewish. It would be as if the witch in Hansel and Gretel had a backstory, and a reason for putting the pair in the oven other than the obvious argument that she's the witch. Shylock has a dead wife whom he loved, a daughter who hates him, and lives in a Jew-hating society B) Portia's famous Mercy Speech is all about how the merciful are divine. However, right ater the speech, they expend no mercy upon Shylock, making him give up his money, his business, and his faith. This subtly shows, to me, that the true villains are the conventional "good guys", Antonio, Portia and the like. They are all extremely hypocritical, and hypocracy was not a very good trait to have in Shakespeare's time (though ironically pretty much everyone was hypocritical.)

That's my two cents.

--Kamikazetomato 04:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Why does this page redirect from just Shylock to Shylock (Shakespeare)? If no one's using just Shylock for anything but a redirect, can't we move the article there? 64.252.16.248 17:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Impact

Shylock has had an indelible impact on how individuals understand anti-semitism. The numerous events of Christians spitting at the man, Jessica leaving her father, and his association to money has clearly left a stained image of this downtrodden character. I would like the reader to take into account that Merchant of Venice is not *a comedy* and that the suffering of this character was mocked at by Christians of the late middle ages. I would also like to say that if you have young kids take them to see it at the Duke Theatre in manhattan and help them to focus on how Shylock feels about his suffering and ask them why did Jessica leave Shylock, why did he feel that it was appropiate to kill Antonio, and did William Shakespeare villanize Shylock or the cruelty of his christian peers. This play is very profound and touches many issues which lead to major themes. P.S: by june davenport

• The word comedy has a classical meaning (comical theatre) and a popular one (the use of humor with an intent to provoke laughter in general). CharlesKiddell 04:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"I would also like to say that if you have young kids take them to see it at the Duke Theatre in manhattan and help them to focus on how Shylock feels about his suffering and ask them why did Jessica leave Shylock, why did he feel that it was appropiate to kill Antonio, and did William Shakespeare villanize Shylock or the cruelty of his christian peers."

If I hadn't seen it, I would've thought that this is parody.

Do you really think I would indoctrinate my children by highlighting the "feelings" of a Jewish murderer? Shakespeare made it really clear who the villain was in this play. The only reason why the likes of you choose to interpret it as such is because you're zombies who would sooner destroy their own kin rather than disobey their Jewish masters, as you have proven by your recommendation how to best indoctrinate our children.

Money lenders have traditionally been the worst parasites in human history. This is no suprise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.47.47 (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Shylock the Jew?

Somebody moved this page to "Shylock the Jew". I acknowledge that he's Jewish, but that shouldn't be the title. He is by far more commonly known simply as "Shylock". No reason to complicate things for our readers. Wrad (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Shylock the Jew

• I agree with above; I've seen the character named "Shylock the Jew" in many editions of the play. The page should remain at "Shylock the Jew". The Moyster (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've moved the page back to Shylock, which is the character's name. If you want to argue for the move, please discuss and reach a consensus on this page. AndyJones (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That he is called "Shylock the Jew" in "many editions of the play" isn't good enough. His most common name is Shylock. Actors, critics, and editors all use this name. See this page and type in Shylock to see several references to him as "Shylock" and not "Shylock the Jew" within the play itself, including one scene in which Portia asks "Is your name Shylock?" and he answers "Shylock is my name." It really doesn't get any clearer than that, especially when it comes to Shakespeare. We can keep the redirect, but please don't move this page back to "Shylock the Jew". Wrad (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

a jew is a jew is a jew whatever the righteous editor says (shemyaza) as once a jewish poetess Gertuda Stein said about a rose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.60.40.175 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Point

I am not entirely convinced by everything in the "Elements of the character" section, especially the last paragraph. I am not entirely convinced that it is "impossible" to say that Barabas from Marlowe's play is without humanity, or at least that he is any less than Shylock formed into what he is by society. At the very least what I'd like to see is some kind of link or reference saying, specifically, that Barabas has no humanity (there are many that would argue that Shylock has none either) before having it, as an opinion, thrown out there in the middle of an article.

Not050 (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Not050

Edward Einhorn's play

I've met Edward Einhorn, I like him, and I admire his work both in way-off-Broadway theater and in the Ozian community, but is his play really notable enough to get a paragraph in this article? Especially since he isn't deemed notable enough to have his own entry? I suspect self-promotion. 206.218.218.57 (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

what is this sentence doing in this article?

"money lending was one of the few careers open to Jews, since Jews were forbidden to charge interest to their brethren (fellow Jews), and Christians also followed Old Testament laws condemning usury charged to their brethren (fellow Gentiles)."

so if i read this right, jews could not charge interest to jews, christians could not charge interest to christians. so how does this make moneylending one of the only work opportunities for jews during the time of shakespeare? i don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.104.32 (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Comment to above: For a comprehensive look at Usury, click on this word in article. Further reading can be found via google,of course. "The Ascent of Money" by Niall Ferguson , book and tv documentary has extensive insight into the origin of money and financial markets, including money lending.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's simple really. Capitalism - the charging of interest on loans - is forbidden by three major religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is because, from the dawn of civilisation it has been recognised that the love of money is the root of all evil. This has been manifested on numerous occasions in history, most recently in the world-wide bank collapse. Love of your family and friends is a much better bet. Fairlightseven 31.01.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.181.140 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Shakespear and Shylock

shakespear was much ahead of his time giving shylock the speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.191.175 (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you're a scalzied moron who views all of history as a straight line of "progress". By that token, Hitler was way ahead of Shakespeare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.47.47 (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

to Shylock something

In the TV series VEGAS I heard one gangster tell the other, that he took money out of the bank, to "shylock" it and earn more. Does "to shylock something" mean to lend (loan shark) in a Jewish way? Thanks! --91.65.22.14 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

• What I think should be changed: Delete this paragraph "Gordon Clark mentions another possibility. At the time, the prefix shy- meant "of questionable character, disreputable, shady" (as in the modern shyster), while shy-cock was slang for "a wary or cowardly person." Michael Lok was governor of the Cathay Company (chartered 1577),[3] which financed Martin Frobisher's disastrous voyage of 1578; he carried back 1,350 tons of "gold ore" which turned out to be worthless hornblende.[4] The venture, therefore, entirely failed, and in January 1579 he had to petition the Privy Council for relief and assistance. In June 1581 he was again petitioning the Privy Council, from the Fleet Prison, condemned at the suit of William Borough to pay for a ship bought for Frobisher's last voyage, though he claimed the debt was not his; he was also bound for a larger debt of the Cathay Company. In 1614–15 he was still being sued for a debt for stores supplied to Frobisher's ships. Calling an untrustworthy businessman "shy Lok" would be an easily understood reference to Elizabethans.[5]"
• Why it should be changed: Source does not support what is said in the article. There is no mention of Michael Lock or the Cathay Company. Instead it has sentences like "This swindling stuff is what Jew-bankers and their Gentile confederates, in Europe and America, are perpetually screaming about as “ an honest dollar.”" The source perpetuates antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jews controlling world banks and the media. We should not keep the paragraph in the article without finding any other source to support the conjecture that "Shylock" was a reference to Michael Lock as none of the current sources do so.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Patpatkittycat (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Patpatkittycat (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: I can't find the text you want deleted. Terasail^[] 13:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@TZubiri deleted the section on April 14th. Thanks TZubiri for the assistance! Patpatkittycat (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Please change the first phrase of the second paragraph to include the following bolded word: "Shylock's characterisation is composed of stereotypes, for instance greediness and vengefulness, although there were no openly practising Jews who lived in England during Shakespeare's time."

There's evidence that the man who is said to have inspired the creation of Shylock, Roderigo Lopes, the chief elizabethan (living in England during Shakespeare's time) court physician, a converso, practiced Judaism in secrecy, as some of the notes and references at the bottom of the article may attest.

Thus, the aformentioned phrase in its current state wouldn't be exactly true - or at least there's no concrete evidence to prove it as such. MichGDL (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added "legally" instead of "openly", as this is the phrasing used in the cited "historical background" section below. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

remove the stereotypes that read as anti-semitic

This line is offensve - Shylock is a stingy Jew who lends money to his Christian rival Antonio, setting the security at a pound of Antonio's flesh.

Using the word stingy here is perpetuating the stereotype and reads as anti-semitic. It could be any other number of descriptive words Pavlob (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)