Talk:The Merchant of Venice/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)
But

I am mystified here. The claim is that "English society in the 1600s was undeniably anti-Semitic". Can someone explain exactly which country in Western Europe was "pro-Semitic" in the 1600's? Contextually, England was no more or less pro, or anti semitic than the bulk of Europe and all of Western Europe. possibly less anti-Semetic than France, Spain, and other rampantly Catholic countries still in the throes of the Inquisition that failed to make much of a distinction between Jew, Hugenot or Reformist. As already pointed out, anyone can point to specific acts, but regardless of how heinous, but it is broad brush strokes that are to be counted when making such sweeping assertions. Deriving justifications for such sweeping assertions by quoting acts undertaken centuries before in the Middle Ages seems quite irrelevant to making such a statement in reference to the Elizabethan era. Either this sweeping statement is a tautology, by reason of default of England being geophysically located in Westen Europe, or the claim needs to be explicated and evidenciary supported in the context of the age it refers to.QorTek 01:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I am concerned that this is another one of the articles targetted by editors with a specific love for pederasty. I see no reason why we can:

1) assume anything about pederasty in this play? 2) the statement that pederasty was common in the Renaissance (or more so than now) is not true. There are ample cases of stern prosecutions of sodomy. It cannot be assumed that it was common.

I am concerned about what I see is a widespread pattern by a few authors to create links in "mainstream" articles to the pederasty article, and make claims that make it seem commonplace or redefine it as a mere expression of platonic love. Please see Haiduc's discussions in the Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo articles to name a few in which he has inserted paragraphs discussing pederasty. I strongly urge the authors to look and see if what these editors are doing is substitutiong pederasty for entries that could easily say homosexuality. I find the substantiation that this play has anything to do with pederasty is completely absent from the article. It is uncited gobbledygook, brought forth by a few with an agenda to make pederasty sound commonplace.CARAVAGGISTI 07:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

HAHA. Iv got this for homework lol. Poo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.75.30 (talk • contribs) 18:13, January 30, 2007

me too..hahaha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.13.237 (talk • contribs) 23:24, April 29, 2008

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePeg (talk • contribs) 20:45, 12 July 2006

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.

Antonio's unexplained depression—"I know not why I am so sad"—and utter devotion to Bassanio has led some critics to theorize that he is suffering from unrequited love for Bassanio and is depressed because Bassanio is coming to an age where he will marry a woman. In his plays and poetry Shakespeare often depicted strong male bonds of varying homosociality, which has led some critics to infer that Bassanio returns Antonio's affections despite his obligation to marry

If I may, just who ARE these critics?? Anon44 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Anti-Semitic? Anti-Christian? Or, anti-hypocrisy?

The suggestion that this play is anti-Semitic is to misunderstand all aspects of the various characters involved.

Let's say for a moment that we reverse all the roles. Let's make Shylock a Christian and all the other characters Jewish. Would the play now be considered Anti-Semitic? Considering that all the "Christians" were either corrupt, malicious, deceitful, etc., who would say that this reversal makes the play not anti-Semitic? But, I'm sure if that reversal were made, there's always someone willing to view it as anti-Semitic no matter what the situation. Frankly, Shylock comes across as the better character. Yes, he's hateful and venegeful, but the other characters display traits which are in their own way as bad or worse. Also, consider the time in which this play was written. Shylock was insulted and sought justice. People were dueling each other over the slightest transgression so it's no surprise Shylock was so determined to exact his revenge.

I have to agree with the critics that see the play as obviously being written to display the hypocritical nature of society and not as an attack on Jews. Jtpaladin 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Gayness

I have a massive problem with the whole Bassanio/Antonio lovers thing. This has not been proven, and is mearly speculation. I have studied each of these charecters and i belive that the part about Antonio being gay should be removed. They were almost like brothers for god sakes. Please remove that content.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.172.155 (talk • contribs) 22:27, April 4, 2007

Agree with you there. The necessity of finding supressed homosexuality everywhere (like Frodo and Sam in LOTR) is a modern (Freud) idiocy but as it is sourced, it has a place in the article.Wolf2191 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It has now been over three months since you raised the issue. The entire section is unsourced and appears to be original research. I'm going to delete it. Mamalujo 22:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1) How is it original research to cite an essay by a well-known poet and literary critic (W. H. Auden)?

2) How is that "the entire section is unsourced" when the source of the central paragraph was named? - InvisibleSun 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with InvisibleSun. Antonio's possible homosexuality is widely discussed and is often highlighted explicitly in performance. Also, it's hardy OR (although admittedly undersourced) since the section clearly cites Auden. AndyJones 20:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the removal. Section could use better sourcing but seems to be valid in essentials. AndyJones 07:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Are Antonio and Bassanio "unrelated" as said in this article? I thought it was written/indicated in the play that they are "kinsmen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.16.254 (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

More anti-Semitism

"You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog, And spit upon my Jewish gaberdine, And all for use of that which is mine own. Well then, it now appears you need my help: Go to then, you come to me, and you say, Shylock, we would have moneys, you say so: You that did void your rume upon my beard, And foot me as you spurn a stranger curr Over your threshold, moneys is your suite. What should I say to you? Should I not say, Hath a dog money" Another plea for acceptance of Jew as Human, if sourced it should be mentioned. It really does seem as if Shakespeare is calling for the acceptance of a Jew as a human.

Regardless of Shakespeare's intention the image of the evil money grubbing Jew against the honest Gentile has been accepted for centuries. I don't know of any major work of literature from Shakespeare to Kipling to Agatha Christie wherein a Jew is not portrayed as a money-grabber. The play was also a favourite of anti-Semites and in Nazi Germany. If specific sources can be found. I suggest a separate section on the influence of the play on anti-Semitism throughout history. Wolf2191 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Added a sort of stub section but it could use more work. I wonder if Shakespeare needed to add in the anti-Semitic statements in order to bring in the humane side of the Jew as a full humane treatment would not have been tolerated by an anti-Semitic public.Wolf2191 00:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 movie

IMDB does not any record of the 2007 movie set in Las Vegas, neither under the title nor under John Logan as writer. Can someone please double check and correct accordingly. THANKS -- Michael Janich 13:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing sections of article

An edit on July 16 accidentally removed from view all of the article after the section entitled "A Catholic reading." I had hoped that the problem could be solved by adding a missing </ref>, but it didn't work. If there is someone who knows how to solve this, it would be much appreciated. - InvisibleSun 18:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. It was a really minor ref mistake. Wow. Wrad 19:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Loki's wager

The plot resolution seems similar to Loki's Wager. Could we make these pages reference each other? In particular compare the segment "The bond only allows Shylock to remove the flesh, not blood, of Antonio. If Shylock were to shed any drop of Antonio's blood in doing so, his "lands and goods" will be forfeited under Venetian laws." to "Loki had no problem with giving up his head, but he insisted they had absolutely no right to take any part of his neck."

Errorx666 23:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Unable to entangle where I may add my text on the persuecution Catholics in Elizabethan England, I refrained from editing this section and added instead a new subheading to segment 5 - wiki reader Clare Krishan, March 17 2007.

BASAAMIO IS WASTEInsert non-formatted text hereI am happy for Shakespeare and his audience to be accused of anti semitism if people wish but they were Christians, not Jews. I propose the section is completely deleted.

Eric144 (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My justification for the deletion is that there is no evidence given to suggest that there is academic support for such an interpretation. Either it should be supplied and tested or the section removed.

Eric144 (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin D. Yaffe Shylock and the Jewish question

This book provides sufficient support for the symphathetic reading. See the review of the book in "Modern Judaism".Wolf2191 (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. This the Amazon synopsis "Yaffe raises the intriguing possibility that Shakespeare presents Shylock not as a typical Jew, but as a bad one."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shylock-Jewish-Question-Hopkins-Studies/dp/0801862612

Even if it did, there is no substantation for the section I wish to delete which is an analysis of repentance in Judaism for which there is neither support from the text or an academic treatise. That's because, without wishing to be offensive, it really is nonsense invented by someone being deliberately perverse.

Eric144 (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You definitely should delete that section. It's sheer nonsense. I thought you were referring to the section on the symphathetic reading (which of course has lots of academic support, the book I mentioned being the best one).Wolf2191 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time following this discussion, but it seems like a few caveats and complications are needed. Don't forget: Shylock is a figure of vice, and therefore at times appealing to the audience (not unlike Aaron the Moor in Titus). He does have a few sympathetic moments, the major one being his speech reminding everyone around him that he, too, is human. He is also presented as a Jew in the early modern sense, which not only has ties to materialism, greed, and an un-Christian lack of mercy/generosity, but also to a tendency toward literal interpretations (the racial explanation for Shylock's adherence to the letter of the law, and how Portia can destroy him by going beyond the letter of the law). The perceived difference at the time between Jews and Christians was that Christians were capable of figurative interpretation of the holy texts. For this last, I suggest Maus's essay in the Norton (not the edition that's just coming out now) and the essay by Braunmuller in the latest Pelican. I'd be happy to track down more sources that deal with the nuances of sympathy/Shylock and his figuration as Vice. --Jgurd (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. I should probably started a new section for this. My argument is simply that the initial text of the section on Religious interpretations (down to A Catholic reading) has no basis in the play, doesn't make any sense and has no references. It should therefore be removed.

The fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism is that salvation for Christians comes purely from the grace of God in the shape of redemption through the blood of Christ and for Jews it is by following the law. That is why great play is made of Shylock's insistence on the law and the Christians upon mercy. In the end, the complexity of the law is Shylock's undoing. St Paul says that the law reveals sin, without it there would be no sin. Jesus himself refers contrasts mercy against the letter of the law, for example healing on the sabbath, the woman taken in adultery, the forgiveness of unfaithfull servants etc.

My view is that Shylock is a 100% negative character because the play has an overarching religious theme. When Shylock insists on the humanity of Jews, it is part of a speech which contends that Antonio's insults were motivated by a hatred of Jews. That is also a reputed Jewish sterotype, to accuse others of racism whennthey themselves are accused. If one were to extrapolate Shylock's behaviour to all Jews then that would of course be anti-semitic.

It is natural for people not to want to confront 16th century attitudes to Jews in modern times but to make Shylock sympathetic isn't the play I read in the texts.

Eric144 (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum - and all that. I just found the end of the play powerfully anti-christian. Shylock the Jews after losing his daughter , and his revenge, has all his money taken from him and is forced to convert. This is the much vaunted Christian - "Mercy". Having Shylock kiss the cross is a stroke of genius since it conjures up the image of another crucifixion.Wolf2191 (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that like Wolf and Jgurd I found this conversation confusing. But if your proposal is to remove the current section headed "Religious interpretations" then I say yes, just get rid of it. Everyone who has commented here seems to agree with that, as does Smatprt who recently added an OR tag. I agree with Jgurd's analysis, though, and I think it would be good if you'd add your material to the article. AndyJones (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wolf2191

You obviously have a moral point but Shylock was called a devil numerous times including by his servant and his own daughter. I see that section as being like an English pantomime where the evil character gets his just desserts in a completely exaggerated, almost preposterous and humiliating way. I don't think the M of V is a completely serious play.

AndyJones

Thanks for the offer. I was responding to the (universally agreed) silliness of the now deleted text and also comments by another user. My view is that the play is probably an exposition of the differences between Judaism and Christianity quite similar to those found in the letters of St. Paul. However this is a scholarly debate which I am not qualified to join. I am happy the text was deleted because I was qualified to say it didn't make any sense.

best wishes

Eric144 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Catholic reading

It seems to me that the Catholic reading gets too much prominence. Remember just because you might find it compelling thus not mean that it should be given a prominent place on wikipedia. Unless this interpretation is widely discussed it shouldn't be mentioned.

Unless someone can give evidence that this interpretation is more noted than the thousands of other articles published on the play I will delete this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.231.115 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Section move

I suggest that we move this section to the article about Shylock, as the section is more about Shylock and his portrayal than the play itself. Furthermore, the Shylock article already has some information about his portrayal. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. In fact, most of the Shylock and antisemitism stuff can profitably be moved and / or copied to Shylock (most of the material can stand to be both places). --Xover (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We could leave an internal link and a few words about Shylock here, and move the actual content to Shylock. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait for a while and get busy if no one opposes the moving of content. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I moved the section, or rather copied it. Could someone with a bit more writing talent shorten the section in this article (and obviously make it refer to Shylock) so we don't have duplicate info? Kotiwalo (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Belmont

I see that Belmont link to Belmonte Calabro. In Italy there are 6 Town with the same name Belmonte (italian for Belmont). Is it sure that Shakespeare was refering to that specific town ? If not is maybe better not to link to any town or, like in the italian Wiki, to link to a Belmonte disambiguation page. Corrado

I recently came across this article: [2]. Dr. Noemi Magri seems to indicate that Shakespeare's Belmont is in fact Villa Foscari. I have not read the article in depth as of yet. I have also not checked the article's sources or the hosting site itself in order to give myself confidence in the findings. If I have both time and inclination I will attempt to sort things out and change the article appropriately. If anyone else wishes to do so before me, be my guest! Radicaledward101 (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please revert defacements

The last three revisions of this article by User:MilkaBronstein and the one previous by User:Judajeviv are all defacements. Please revert this page to oldid=341687057: [3]. --216.145.71.162 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted. William Avery (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"The play's antisemitic overtones can be troubling to modern sensibilities."

Modern sensibilities??? Are you serious??? Since the play is obviuosly antisemitic (just read some parts), this sentence doesn't say anything than: in those days it was normal, but today people became a bit sensitive with stuff like that... That's quite disgusting, although I'm not a native speaker, I'll try to change that in a more appropriate form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.45.60.105 (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Sympathetic Reading

I'm inclined to delete this whole section. Besides its terrible grammar, there is not a single citation on the whole of it. It's extremely speculative and only tries to counter previous claims which the average reader most likely hasn't heard of. It seems more to me like an 8th grade essay on intolerance rather than an encyclopedia entry. Please give it a closer look and contribute if you can. As of myself, I'll prepare a briefer, more accurate and less biased draft which I will post here prior to replacing the previous one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco Espinosa (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I agree with a major rewrite of this section.It takes real talent to relate the complex and emotive substance of the play to a critical appraisal,without losing the sense of Shakespeares narrative and supposed "intent".This must also be measured with an understanding of the prejudice of his time and compared to views of today.Remember that to some racists Shakespeare allows Shylock and Jews too much humanity.(Sad,yes).The horrors of the Holocaust were guided by twisted ideas, but are these ideas traceable to the play? The play can hardly seen as a plea for understanding between different religions, and could be criticised for that.Maybe a link to topic "Racism" would help?Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have radically trimmed it. William Avery (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Too Focused On Antisemitism

One of the biggest themes of discussion for The Merchant of Venice is if, or how much, it is Antisemitic. That is not debatable. But, the play has a lot more depth to it, and this article is extremely generic and boring in its focus on Antisemitism and that old Shakespeare favourite - "aren't all the main characters gay and in love with each other?" There is so much to this play outside of the Jewish aspect that it is criminal to have this article so squarely focused on it being Antisemtic. Antonio and Shylock both have depth to them, and to study the play is to see past them as "Jew" and "Christian". First Act, Scene Three, we have this gem from Shylock - "I hate him for he is a Christian, But more for that in low simplicity He lends out money gratis and brings down The rate of usance here with us in Venice." If Shylock can look past Antonio's religion and hate him on something with more depth, why can't the Wiki community? I also think it would be better to separate Shylock from his religion, so that we can analyze him as a character, and not as a representative of Jews as a whole. That is extremely unfair to Shylock and, more importantly, to Jews. It would be like judging all British people based on watching Die Hard.

The article doesn't mention Portia's role, or the overwhelmingly positive view on Women the play offers. It doesn't give an alternate view on Shylock's forced conversion to Christianity, only seeing it as the final piece of a play that will turn everyone who reads it into Jew-haters. (For the record, that view would be that his conversion will not allow him to charge interest on loans, and also that it will save his soul.) It mentions Antonio as the main character, but does not mention the transformation his character undergoes (The beginning of the play establishes that Antonio and Shylock hate each other, but at the end Antonio has a chance to ruin Shylock's life but he does not.) It does not mention Shylock's relationship with Jessica.

Most disgustingly, it does not even mention either the Casket Test or the Ring Test - or any part of the play that does not involve Shylock. Why is this article even called "The Merchant of Venice"? Why not call it "An Article On Shylock where we only see him as a positive character despite anything in the play that could show him as otherwise." There's depth to Shylock, that means he has positive and negative traits. I mean, Shylock is someone who says "if you cannot pay me back for this loan, I will kill you". Why is he painted as a tragic hero? There is plenty of credibility for seeing him that way, but it does the play and his character a disservice to only see him that way.

Potential Themes To Expand Upon: Casket Test, Ring Test (Portia testing Bassanio her own way, not her fathers way), Forgiveness and Mercy (breaking the cycle of hate, showing compassion to an enemy,), Old Testament/New Testament comparisons (Old Testament = punishment New Testament = Forgiveness), Women's Roles and/or Intelligence, the cycle of hate, comparing Antonio to Bassanio and Bassanio to Gratiano, Antonio and Bassanio's relationship (in regards to Bassanio, having just been married, leaving his new wife to save Antonio), Bassanio and Portia's relationship (that, despite just marrying, Portia follows Bassanio to test his loyalty), there's the recurring theme in Shakespeare's plays of two locations, one ruled by laws (in this case, Venice) and one more wild (Belmont).

There are a lot of aspects to write on. I hope one day we can expand this article into one better representing the entire play, and not just one perspective of one aspect of one of the characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.229.48 (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting, and quite apropos, comments. I quite agree that this article has not received nearly the attention and effort it deserves. The main reason for this, of course, is a dearth of contributors. Wikipedia's Shakespeare WikIProject has so far focussed on improving William Shakespeare, Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet to a passable quality; and we're currently working on bringing The Tempest to the same level. The articles on the remaining plays are of wildly variable quality, depending on the individual contributors and amount of attention they've received.
However, the good news is this: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit! I would strongly encourage you to set up a user account, roll up your sleeves, and jump in. Wikipedia has some particular policies on neutral point of view, reliable sources, and verifiability; but other than that it's mainly a question of what interests you and where you feel like contributing. The Shakespeare WikiProject would, I'm sure, be quite happy to help you get settled in if needed; or feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if I can be of any assistance. --Xover (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible Factual Error

In the section "Film adaptations" the following entry appears:

"1932—musical comedy directed by King Vidor. The cast includes Bing Crosby and Marilyn Miller."

I have not been able to ascertain that this movie exists. Auriferous1 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'm going to delete it. I thought perhaps it had a different title, so I searched for any movie directed by King Vidor with Bing Crosby and Marilyn Miller. Didn't find anything that way, either. If anyone knows of a source verifying that this movie exists, they can re-enter the information, and, please, cite the source. Susfele (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Perspective?

"In the trial Shylock represents the Jewish side in contrast to the Christian one in a matter of highest importance: Justice (Jewish, Old Testament) is confronted with Mercy (Christian, New Testament). In the Christian view mercy is the decisive step after justice is reached. Therefore the Christians in the courtroom urge mercy. Beside the fact, that Shylock as a Jew is not in duty to give mercy, he is not able as well, because for this you need love. He doesn't find love at all, but hate. Shakespeare explains this in Shylock's monologue very clearly. To be merciful despite the hate nevertheless you have to love your enemy (New Testament). That means in fact that the Christians in the courtroom urge Shylock to behave like a very true Christian by loving his enemies although they themselves failed even in loving just their neighbours (the Jews) in the past before."

Second person much? 129.2.18.220 (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious that "William Shakespeare" was a pseudonym. It also seems obvious that Edward de Vere was the real author of the Shakespearean canon. Therefore, it seems obvious that we should credit the real person for authoring the play, and please, no more lectures about consensus fringe theories. It's getting terribly boring, and in this case, it's completely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolduncanscousin (talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is that it is the stated policy of Wikipedia to mirror current consensus of mainstream scholarship, not to promote pioneering minority theories, even if there is a slim chance those theories may eventually gain consensus (as for example happened with the theory of continental drift, a classic example of what was once a fringe theory that turned out to be justified). This is something that after months and months of negotiations you Oxfordians repeatedly do not seem to get. There is an entire 1 and a quarter articles on WP about the Oxfordian theory which given its current status is where it belongs.

It is not a matter of whether I or Mark Arsten agree with whether Shakespeare is the author. It is a question of WP policy of reflecting what is currently the most proportionately pervasive point of view. Some people think it is obvious that the Mafia killed JFK, that Marilyn Monroe was murdered, etc. but we don't state these as fact on WP, and the degree to which these ideas are exposed/discussed on Wikipedia is proportionate to their general acceptance by mainstream historians.

The Talk page of Hamlet has been blocked because of bad behavior of other Oxfordians, including defiance of a previous ban that was put in place several months ago, long before I got involved. Previous Oxfordians have compared us to a Communist government, and now you at this edit are comparing us to the Catholic Church re its treatment of Galileo. Both Communists and Catholics have had life-and-death control over the entire populaces- we're just carving out a bit of turf on the Internet here, and trying to set some rules and ask people to abide by them. Comparing Wikipedia to either the Inquisition or Communist Korea is honestly like comparing a bowie knife to a nuclear bomb.

I myself was open to the suggestion of a brief discussion of the Devere theory in the body of the article Hamlet on the grounds that elements of that particular play figure prominently in Oxfordian argumentation. However, I was overruled by appeal to the rule WP:ONEWAY and conceded. Addendum: Essentially, since although many books on the Oxfordian theory discuss "Hamlet", virtuall no books devoted to "Hamlet" discuss the DeVere theory. For that reason WP:ONEWAY applies, and the DeVere theory is not mentioned in the article.

The "Hamlet" article fully acknowledges that "Ur-Hamlet" is a semi-speculative supposition for which only indirect evidence can be cited. There is also scholarly disagreement as to whether the hypothetical "Ur-Hamlet" is by someone else, or is an early draft by Shakespeare himself. You ask what a reliable source of "Ur-Hamlet" is. In previous attempts by WP editors to accomodate Oxfordians, Oxfordians have stubbornly dismissed all the traditional scholarship as obviously unreliable, which has significantly aggravated the impression that Oxfordians are unnecessarily difficult to work with. But if you must know, Harold Bloom and Andrew Cairncross both back the Ur-Hamlet theory.

In my personal opinion (which ought to be irrelevant to the content of Wikipedia), I can understand why it seems somewhat improbable that Shakespeare wrote his plays. But the case for all the other candidates strikes me as even weaker.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of addendum

Wikipedia will generally never present any controversial content as undisputed fact (which several Oxfordians here are repeatedly trying to do). As such it may seem unfair that articles on the individual plays such as Hamlet and this article present Shakespeare as the author of the plays in a flat-out manner. However, studies devoted to the individual plays almost never enter into the authorship controversy. Ergo, the WP principle of WP:ONEWAY applies.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wickerguy, here's a site that might change your mind: http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/stateofdebate/LovesLaboursLost.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by MillardFillimore (talk • contribs) 01:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There isn't anything about Merchant that I could see in the essay suggested by User:MillardFillimore, above, apart from its inclusion in a list of works published in quarto. What am I missing, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The essay is also very confused about the meaning of "circular reasoning", and refers to the traditional view as "orthodox" rather than as "classical" or "traditional", which is a bit of a red flag to me.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In case people aren't aware, MillardFillimore has been indef blocked, see the SPI report. Johnuniq (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

To WickerGuy: these are not "new" theories. The Oxfordian theory has been around since 1920. that is new only in geologic time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Barlow Jr (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To Old Moonraker: MillardFillimore’s comment was largely in reference to WickerGuy’s general comment about the Oxfordian claim. Since discussions on those pages are often blocks or pro-Oxford comments are deleted, it is necessary to have the discussions here. To Wickerguy: Call it what you want. If you prefer “traditional” or “classical”, that is fine. This is semantics we’re arguing over. You all can bury your heads in the rules about ONEWAY, FRINGE, UNDUE influence, etc. The fact is that you’re not allowing enough discussion on any of these pages about the Oxfordian theory or the authorship dispute, in any of its manifestations, including its relation to individual plays. You can’t keep banning people or deleting comments you disagree with—not on the discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumb Moonraker (talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Eventually you are going to figure out that you are being blocked because of extensive WP:sockpuppeting and general bad behavior, not mainly because of anyone's disagreement to your views, views which you are entitled to, but which you are not entitled to post here in blatant disregard of our rules.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And, yes, recurring disregard of our rules CAN get you blocked from Talk pages.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Themes

---

Sorry this isn't under References, but there is no Talk section on it. *The Merchant of Venice* has been referred to by the media twice regarding my former Governor Haley Barbour. Today (Jan 17, 2012) Time Magazine referred to the "Quality of Mercy" speech regarding the slew of pardons he issued at the end of the term. The play in general was referred to earlier to Barbour as he LITERALLY required a pound of flesh for a pardon. In the Scott Sisters case, two women were incarcerated for a crime that is questionable whether they committed it. One required dialysis while in prison, costing Mississippi $200,000 per year, so Barbour required that one donate a kidney to the other for a pardon. For medical reasons, the transplant did not occur, and they did not get a pardon even with the mass exodus at the end of Barbour's term.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.113.213 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it's possible for the Themes section of this article to be any more poorly written than it already is. Run-on sentences and statements without a clear focus abound. At other times, borderline incoherent nonsense masquerades as analysis. The meandering, unfocused language is torturous to read. Just read this:

The play is constructed without to much background information about the characters whom we have to accept as they present themselves. Unlike for example Jane Austen who goes into considerable genealogic detail to achieve a realistic structure. So the play whilst being very unrealist and with many improbabilities nevertherless has a strong impact upon the audience.::

Or equally as bad,

It is open to question that the audience would feel Sympathetic towards Shylock when his mutinous daughter, his only family member, deserts him to marry a Christian taking with her many valuable possessions, including the first ring Shylock gave to his late wife ... The way that Shylock deals with his daughter also affects the audience’s sympathy for his character, his reaction is anger, and however were Shylock to break into tears the audience is more likely to feel sympathy for the Jew. Presuming Shakespeare knew how an audience reacts to certain emotions, such as hurt, fear or anger, he had the opportunity to lead the audience to sympathise with this character however he chose not to at this point.::

This work is a travesty. An utter embarrassment. Material this poor has no place on important topics like the works of Shakespeare. Rather than insightful and helpful, it merely serves to confound the reader. The person contributing this material would do both Wikipedia and the subject matter a favor by NOT contributing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.198.149 (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The historical significance of Shakespeare is in reflecting the values of his time.These values are informed by the religious arguements then raging across England and Europe,making various forms of "Christianity" compulsory under threat of death,just in case the populace might feel inclined to debate.The racial themes of The Merchant of Venice depict views that are now illegal in Australia under racial vilification laws etc.(I can't speak for legislation in England and elsewhere).The play is unlikely to be banned, as it is seen in the context of its era.I agree with the preceeding unsigned comments.The whole article could be rewritten.The themes of the play are relevant to dialogue between religions,or anyone.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision metaphor?

Sorry everyone, I hope you won't find this a daft point, but I have read (I think it was in James Shapiro's book Shakespeare and the Jews) that Shylock's 'pound of flesh' can be seen as a metaphor for circumcision. Would it be worth noting this in the article (backed with the approprite references, of course) or does it belong elsewhere? Absurdtrousers (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No reason not to mention it if Shapiro does. (Although surely the bit of flesh in question weighs less than a pound? But whatever...) Barney Jenkins (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem- I'll see if I can work it in somehow. Absurdtrousers (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Was Shapiro's book really that daft? To draw controversial metaphors is the sign of desperation for attention,not verified research.What evidence does Shapiro cite?Is Shapiro really saying that Shakespeare was trying to do Monty Python on stage;"Nudge, nudge,say no more!"Are you kidding?Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Shapiro actually makes the case that the initial mention of a "pound of flesh" is a reference to castration. (Although that point is made in as part of a larger demonstration of how "circumcision" and "castration" were often equated or related by Elizabethan writers.) He supports this interpretation of the text in a couple of different ways: First, by noting multiple examples of the term "flesh" being used be Elizabethan writers as a pun for "penis". Second, by noting that one of the possible sources of the "pound of flesh" story actually refers to the pound of flesh as being explicitly taken by castration. Shapiro also points out that this is far from a "this is the only possible interpretation", but I agree with him that there's more than enough evidence to suggest that this is a very plausible interpretation. Shapiro also points out that the explicit shift from "to be cut off and taken in what part of your body pleaseth me" (as the bond originally stipulates in 1.3) to "to be by him cut off nearest the merchant's heart" (as it stipulates during the trial in 4.1) is an intriguing one given the prominent themes in Elizabethan theology suggesting that the difference between Jew and Christian was that a Jew was physically circumcised (on their foreskin) while a Christian was metaphorically circumcised (in their heart). As I say, this is not a definite "the play must be read like this" interpretation; but it is certainly not a "daft" one. Justin Bacon (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a metaphor for circumcision but rather close to the Bible story about Abraham offering to sacrifice his son Isaac and being stopped at the last moment, when a ram is substituted. The mercy shown in this story is not reflected by Shylock who has every chance to recall this story and to retract his claim for Christain flesh. By behaving in this manner Shylock is undoubtably guilty of breaking faith with his Jewish beliefs as well as using the law to permit an act of murder.85.65.60.73 (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Quality of Mercy

The discussion about this play has centered largely on the charactor of Shylock and the amount of anti-semitism contained within the various ways that Shylock is portrayed. However this is only one of the 3 basic stories contained within the play, the other two being the method for choosing of a suitor for Portia and the promise of faithfullness by two husbands by the use of the rings. In my opinion these two additional stories are a necessary whole, in order to properly express Shakespere's presentation of the nature of humanity, particularly towards promises made but not always kept. This overall theme has the greater significance.

Antonio fails to return his debt in time, Portia follows her late father's wishes (and incidentally marries the most attractive suitor, who gets a little prompting here by the singers) and Bussario and his friend both default on their ring-wearing vows. Thus men are seen here to be less reliable and less able than women, who are more fully aware of the realities of the situation and can better manipulate the human weaknesses of their mates to advantage. In this merciful story the failures to keep faith are forgiven or in the case of Antinio's are compelled to be forgiven. It is less relevant that when the sources are Christain that mercy comes faster that when it is of a Jewish kind. Macrocompassion (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Jewish/Christian stereotypes presented as fact

I am concerned that the section on "Shylock as sympathetic character" presents the Elizabethan historical reading that Jews value justice over mercy, and Christians vice-versa, as fact. This is an antisemitic stereotype that the play toys with but doesn't necessarily validate. The section is also written a bit poorly, and I suggest rewriting it to clarify that "Jews value justice, Christians value mercy" is an antiquated stereotype rather than religious and cultural actuality.

The section of the page in question:

"In the trial Shylock represents the supposedly Jewish desire for justice (Old Testament) versus the Christian one for mercy (New Testament). The Christians in the courtroom urge mercy. Shylock is not able because he does not find love, but hate. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.120.83 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the question here, rather than just putting the material back. Parts of this sub-section have rather a ragged air and your second try seemed to leave things a little tidier. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as you reverted my second try, so what's currently in the article (and what I have quoted) is not mine. Does this mean you agree it should be edited? Or have you mistaken me for someone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilburn London (talk • contribs) 08:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I was replying to the IP user whom signbot identifies as 94.170.120.83; is that you? I thought that the second try from 94.170.120.83 was an improvement; I did not revert it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverted my edit. Sorry for that! --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 09:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks—that was quick!--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible Readabilty Issue

I don't know if the use of 17th Century English and its glyphs (!) is appropriate for use in the 2nd introductory paragraph "This is made explicit by the title page of the first quarto: The moſt excellent Hiſtorie of the Merchant of Venice. VVith the extreme crueltie of Shylocke the Iewe towards the ſayd Merchant, in cutting a iuſt pound of his flesh: and the obtaining of Portia by the choice of three chests." - I understand the "ſ" to function as a modern "s", etc. but wouldn't it be better to adopt modern spelling and character glyphs if this even if it is a direct quote? I understood a quote to be a word-for-word representation of the source or instance to the extent that a verbal quote could be made as a written transcript, I suspect the current format renders the quote near unreadable to many readers, including myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.17.174 (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

seconded ~zacx666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.220.117 (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)