User:Mathsci/example1

NOTICE This page is part of ArbCom evidence. Please not edit the content. Please place your comments on ArbCom case pages.

Noleander's section on Shylock

The character Shylock in William Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice is a Jewish moneylender who is portrayed in unscrupulous and avaricious. Derek Penslar asserts that Shylock is a metaphor for the Jewish "otherness" and that he represents the "inseparability of Jewish religious, social, and economic distinctiveness". Gerald Krefetz calls Shylock a "classic image" which has haunted Jews ever since it first appeared, since it made Jews a scapegoat.

Historian Richard Hofstadter writes that Shylock was used as the basis for "crankery" by Charles Coughlin and Ezra Pound.

John Gross states that Shylock represented "the sinister international financier" on both sides of the Atlantic.

Abraham Foxman contends that Shylock may have contributed to antisemitism in Japan, because The Merchant of Venice is translated into Japanese more than any other play of Shakespeare.

The first pages of Penslar's book, "Shylock's children: economics and Jewish identity in modern Europe

The moneylender Shylock, Shakespeare's most notrious invention, represents the totality of otherness in Christian Europe. His livelihood is synecdoche, representing the inseparability of Jewish religious, social, and economic distincitveness. Throughout much of European history, Jews concentrated in certain occupations and displayed particular characteristsics in the practice of their livelihoods and the spending of their earnings. Gentile perceptions of Jewish economic differences were usually hostile, at times admiring, but always influential inthe shaping of government politics towards Jews and social interaction between Jews and Gentiles.

This book is about how Jews in modern Europe preceived and accounted for their economic difference.It examines Jewish responses to Gentile critiques of Jewish economic behavior and, more broadly, Jewish thinking about the relationship between Judaism and economic practice. From the time of Enlightenment to the early decades of twentieth century, there developed in Europe a matrix of Jewish economic mentalités, a matrix that this book reassembles and represents.

The emancipation of European Jewry has been extensively studied, as has the effect of emancipation on new forms of Jewish religious and social identity. But sursprisingly, given the centrality fo economic themes in modern antisemitism, as well as the very real economic crises that affecte European Jewry, historians have tended to approach Jewish economic discourse in an indirect fashion at best. To be sure, the economic ideologies behing eastern European late-nineteenth-century radicalism—whether in the form of the socialist Bund or the early Zionist Labor movement—have received extensive attention. But the same cannot be said for bourgeois Jews, whose economic distinctiveness was a source of strong feelings, ranging from pride to consternation.

Pages 16-20 of Penslar's book

Economic antisemitism was not, however, merely an expression of hostility toward a competitor in a trade that in and of itself enjoyed high status. Precisely because Jews were excluded from merchant guilds, as well as most crafts and large-scale agriculture, they cncentrated in low-status forms of trade such as dealing in secondhand goods, peddling, pawnbroking, and, most significant, moneylending. The main forces promoting Jewish moneylending in the Middle Ages were the rise of a Christian bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and the material interests of princes and prelates, on the other. With the growth of towns in the ninth and tenth centuries, Jewish merchants were gradually displaced by Christians. To be sure, Jewish involvement in trade continued throughout the Middle Ages; similalry, despite the expulsion from Christian crafts guilds, many Jews continued to work in a number of crafts. Nonetheless in the High Middle Ages, most Jews in western Europe engaged to some extent in moneylending.

The economic forces pushing Jews out of other occupations were matched by other pulling them into the money trade. Temporal leaders, including the ecclesiastical rulers of towns and estates, encourage Jews to practice moeylending in their dominions. Until the thirteenth century Jews were indispensable sources of capital for major contruction projects (including cathedrals) and military campaigns. Since the security for such loans was a landed estate, Jews found themselves at times, as in England in the 1200s, coming into possession, in the case of defaulted loans, of vast properties, thus provoking the wrath of the nobility, which, accurately enough, saw the Jews as the agents of the king. A further source of tension, also developing in the 1200s, came when Jews were gradually displaced by Christians as the lenders of fund to princes and prelates. Jews tended to concentrate in relatively small-scale consumer lending, which involved high rates of interest—of between 20 and 50 percent and at times more than 80 percent—because of the general scarcity of capital, the substantial risk of default ot annulment by the authorities, and the Jews' heavy tax burdens.

For medieval clerics, Jewish usury was an evil in itself and a symbol of the corruption of secular authority and, at times, ecclesiatical authority as well. These factors, combined with the profound religious animosity that clerics felt towards Jews, stimulated a hysterical anger on the part of many late-medieval clerics towards Jewish usury. That said, even among the highest levels of the canonical theorists there were voices that justified usury and its practice by Jews. they folowed the teaching of st Ambrose of Milan (340-397) that usury could be legally imposed "against whom you rightly desire to harm, against whom weapons are lawfully carried ... From him exact usury whom it wold not be a crime to kill ... Where ther is the right of war, there is also the right of usury." Just as any enemy of Christendom (e.g., heretics, Saracens, or Jews) could be charged usurious interest on a loan by a Chrisian, so, by extension, Jews, who were thought to be in a state of war aganst Christians, were permitted to practice usury against them. At the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "heavy or immoderate usuries" by Jews were singled out for condemnation.

Jewish moneylending in the later Middle Ages fulfilled a despised but necessary public service. The toleration of Jewish moneylending in medieval and Rennaissance western Europe represented a crude form of social policy, for it increased the flow of cash to the poor wihtout having to raise taxes or overhaul the administration of poor relief. Precisely because of the religious barriers between Jew and Christian, could more easily tolerate Jewish usury than that practiced openly by Christians. It was commonly argued that because the jews are already damned, they may be left to commit the sin of usury, thereby saving the souls of Christians who might otherwise engage in this activity. Indeed, Christian moneylenders experienced significant social opprobrium. Merchants from northern Italy who, during the thirteenth century, began practising usury in France, were denounced in popular literature as devouring monsters, denied Christian burial due to their disregard for canon law, and subject, like Jews, to expulsion in the fourteenth century.

Not only did some medieval canonists justify Jewish usury against Christians, they also recognized the legitimacy of profit earned on commercial, as opposed to consumer, loans. Canoncists formulated dozens of legal fictions that justified the taking of interest through arrangements such as a sham partnership. in which the creditor contributes funds to the debtor's eeterprise, earning a guaranteed return on his "investment." And the Franciscans' justification of the taking of moderate levels of interest (5 to 10 percent) on consumer loans, as in the monti de pietà (church-sponsored loan-banks) in Italy, was overt and unashamed. San Bernadino claimed that "[m]oney has not simply the chracter of money, but it has beyond this a productive character, which we commonly call capital," This same friar was his fiery Judeophobic sermons, in which Jewish usury figured prominently. Bernadino's anger stemmed in part from the high interest rates Jews charged the Christian faithful, but more from the symbolic power of the usurious loan as a vehicle of Jewish dominaton over Christians.

Both clerics and merhcants villified Christian usury, but neither party necessarily had contact with Jewish moneylenders. Merchants encountered Jews as business competitors; clerics encountered them as disputatnts, potential converts, or, most often, chimerical figures—demons who were existantial enemies of Christendom and of the church. Assocations between te Jews and usury may have originated in the concrete historical reality of the High Middle Ages but thereafter broke from their moorings and entered the realm of fantasy. Jewish usury became the cynosure of a constellation of antisemitic mentalities; a manifest act poiting to esoteric, malignant practices, an allegory for the bellum iudacorum contra omnes, In The Entire Jewish Belief (1530), the Jewish convert Anton Margaritha claimed that "the practice of usury was the central obstacle to the conversion of Jews." Only by being forced to perform manual labour could Jews be weaned of their noxious habit, drained of theor inveterate arrogance, and drawn to the Christian faith. The trope of the usurious jew runs through Martin Luther's notoious screed On the Jews and Their Lies (1543), which concludes with thundering demands hat the secular authorities not only suppress the Jews' religious practice but also ban usury and compel them to work in agriculture and handicrafts as punishment for their allegedly criminal behaviour.

As is well known from the example of Shakespeare's Shylock, the stereotype of the Jewish usurer retained resonance even in lands from which Jews had been expelled in the late Middle Ages. It persisted with a vengeance in the German lands, despite the growing acceptance, from the mid-1500s, of moneylending in Protestant culture. Nor was it affected by the decline in the 1600s of Jewish moneylending in Germany. Reductions in the maximum allowable interest rates from approximately 33 percent to somewhere between 5 and 12 percent made moneylending unprofitable fo all but the wealthiest Jews. This factor, combined with steady inflation resulting from the import of specie from the New World, pushed many Jews in Germany into commerce. As the majority of German Jewry fell into poverty, a miniscule minority grew wealthy through international commerce and purveying to armies, The increasingly anachronistic image of the Jewish usurer blended with the two developing forms of economic antisemitism: fantasies about the Jewish thief, leeching off the populace from below, and the Court Jew, the manipulator from above.

Krefetz's book Jews and Money: the myths and the reality

The theme was elaborated upon by both writers of popular works and belles lettres.The classic image, delineated by Shakespeare in the character of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, has haunted Jews ever since. Never mind that Jewish bankers could not compare to the great Italian and German banking families and that the populace hated and feared Christian bankers far more than the petty Jewish moneylender: the Jew made a convenient scapegoat.

Hofstadter quoted in Gross's book Shylock: A legend and its legacy

Chapter 18: Anti-Semites

Histories of anti-Semitism often contain a passing reference to Shakespeare. In Robert Wistrich's Anti-Semitism: The Longest Hatred, for instance, we are to told that despite the plawright's skill in humanizing certain qualities of Shylock, "his portrait served to crystallize and reinforce an anti-Semitic literary stereotypr for centuries to come." A bleak verdict, but in the context within which Wistrich is writing, an inescapable one. We can console ourselves wth the thought that there is so much more to The Merchant of Venice than that; we can argue forever that Shakespeare was expressing anti-semitic sentiments, or merely describing them. But when it comes to the question of influence, there can be no serious dispute: Shylock has a prominent place in anti-Semitic mythology.

"To crystallize and reinforce": Wistrich chooses his words with care. The stereotype was flourishing hundreds of years before Shakespeare, and it would have gone on flourishing for hundreds of years without him. But he endowed it with his fame and prestige, and in a sense his humanizing it only made it seem more plausible. Israeel Zangwell used to tell a story about a Victorian gentlewoman who explained, speaking for her social class, that "of course Shylock is the only Jew most of us know personally."

It must also be borne in mind that most peoplefirst get to hear of Shylock at an early age, when the seeds of prejudice are most readily sown. In their celebrated study The Love and Language of Schoolchildren, Iona and Peter Opie recorded that "today"-in the 1950s-"children colloquially refer to a Jew as a Yid, Shylock or Hooknose." In a Mass-Observation survey carried out during the Second World War, The Merchant of Venice was regulalrly cited by respondents who were asked to name the influence that had done most to shape their attitude to Jews when they were young. Present-day researchers, it is true, might well come up with different results. But this is how thing still stood forty or fifty years ago, as they had for generations before.

A good deal of the material which has already been discussed in this book has its anti-Semitic aspects, but in most cases those aspects are secondary, or incidental, or offset by other considerations. something more remains to be said about Shlock in relation to plain, unalloyed anti-Semitism, which naturally includes anti-Semitism in its organized form.

A systematic survey would keep a research team busy for years, but a few examples will, I think, be enough. Take, for instance, a recent article on the history of anti-Semitism in Australia by Sol Encel, a sociologist at the University of New South Wales. It should first be made clear that anti-Semitism has played only a very minor part in Australian life-in the words of Professor Encel, it has never been more than a "slight background noise." Bit it has always existed, and in the course of the article, brief though it is, Shylock makes an appearance on three separate occasions. the earliest comment Encel cites comes from a newspaper is Tasmania, which in1832 railed at newly arrived Jewish immigrants as "Shylocks" and "incubuses." A second quotation is an interesting example of how useful Shylock could be when anti-Semites were looking foor a purely secular symbol of "the eternal Jew." In 1894, in an attack in Jewish financial interests, the Melbourbe Age informed its readers that "the Hebrew is a mark of the obloquy of the worlds, not on account of his fidelity to the Mosaic dispensation, but because he is and must remain the Shylock of the nations." Finally, from amongst various anti-Semitic writings inspired by the First World War, Encel singles out The Kingdom of Shylock (1915), a pamphlet by a left-wing Australian MP who claimed that the war was the result of an imperialist plot launched in Britain and financed by Jewish money.

Five years later, in 1920, an Englishman called E.S. Spencer (in this case, a man of the extreme right) published a small book entitled Democracy or Shylocracy? which he described as "a graphic exposure of Jewish corruption in Finance, Politics and Society." On both sides of the world, Shylock served as a synonym for the sinister international financier—and on both sides of the Atlantic, too. In the United States, according to the historian Richard Hofstadter, "the Shylock image pervades money crankery from the Greenbackers to Fauther Coughlin and Ezra Pound." It is true that making use of the Shylock image seldom entailed mentioning Shylock by name, but occasionally it did. Hodstadter's observation occurs in the course of an essay on the free-silver pamphleteer William "Coin" Harvey, and although Harvey sometimes denied he had any prejudice against Jews, he did not hesitate to identify one of the faces of the enemy, in his bestseller Coin's Financial School (1894), as that of "a Jewish Shylock clutching his gold." (He also published a lurid novel, A Tale of Two Nations, about a plot to undermine the American economy from London by a Rothschild-like banker called Baron Rothe.)

Foxman's Jews and Money: The story of a stereotype, pages 24-27

Yet alongside this popular image of penny-pinching Jews there's a counter-image of Jews flaunting their wealth through inappropriate displays-as in the 2006 movie Keeping Up with the Steins, featuring (according to the moviemakers) Benjamin Fielder's "mega-bash," in which "the bar is more important than the mitzvah and a Jewish star means Neil Diamond," or the endless jokes about Jewish American Princesses. Silly and annoying? Of course, and also a reflection of deeper and more troubling currents of anti-Semitism even in sime of Ameirca's seemingly most advanced academic settings. I'm thinking for example of students at Cornell University who repeatedly wore T-shirts reading SLAP-A-JAP! and BACK OFF BITCH, I'M A JAP-BUSTER!

Arch capitatlists—yet secret Communists. Ultra cheap—yet flaunting their wealth. The apparently comfortable coexistence of these kinds of self-contradictions within the Jews-and-money stereotype helps make clear that belief in the stereotype isn't driven by logic but rather by the same dynamic that drives all anti-Semitism: hatred toward the "other" motivated by insecurity, ignorance and fear.

And belief in the myths surrounding Jews nd money is certainly not based on personal experience and observation of Jewish life and behavior. For even in a country like Japan, where the Jewish presence has always been minimal, anti-Semitic beliefs have become alarmingly popular. Essayist Daniel L. Alexander has described his personal encounters with those beiefs. In Alexander's words, "the Japanese seem to have developed a horror and fascination with the Jews on a par with the stringest European traitions, and a surprising number of Japanese seem to ebter political, economic, and inellectual life with Jews on the brain."

Alexander describes attending a lecture titled "The Jewish Mind and the Japanese Mind" delivered by a longtime Japanese resident, Jack Halperm, a former yeshiva student from Brooklyn and the son of Holocaust survivors who has made a career out of lecturing on the "international adaptability and business acumen" if the Jews-alleged traits many Japanese are eager to emulate. But unfortunately, if predictably, the widespread sense of admiration for Jewish accomplishments co-exits with what Alexander calls "the nasty side of Japanese fascination with Jews":

A coworker took me to a private estate for an exhibition of netsuke, the elaborately hand-crafted traditional miniatures. Sipping teain the rear garden, as the zitherysounds of a koto floated in the background, my coworker and I discussed the exhibition and the state of the art business with a co-organizer of the exhibition—who promptly blamed "that cabal of Jews who've bought up the stock market on the cheap" for the nation's economic strain then beginning to tell in sluggish fine-art sales.

In recents decades, a startlingly large number of books have been published in Japan that promote stereotypes about Jews and money. Some are directly based on The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion—for example, a 1973 best-seller titled Nostradamus no daiyugen (The Great Phrophecy of Nostradamus) by Goto Ben and a similar 1986 book, Yudaya go wakaruto sekai ga mietekuru (To Watch Jews Is to See the World Clearly) by Masami Uno. Uno, interestingly enough, believes that the Japanese are descendants of the legendary Lost Tribes of Israel, and he predicts that some day they will defeat the "fake Jews" who currently rule the world. Even mainstream political leaders have espoused Jewish conspiracy theories, Saito eizaburo, a member of the House of Councillors (the Japanese equivalent of the United States Senate), authored a 1084 book titles Sekai wo ugokasu yudaya pawag no himitsu (Secrets of the Jewish Power which Controls the World),

Experts on Japan have advaced various theories to explain the spread of ant-Semitic ideas in that countray. Some focus on the ongoing struggle of the Japanese to define their country's role in the modern worlds and the resulting array of conflicting values, attitudes, and desires that have arsen in that struggle. When people are having difficulty making sense of their place in a rapidly changing worlds, the analysts say, it's tempting to search for a scapegoat group to blame for their troubles. Others say that the Japanese attraction to The Protocols-style conspiracy theories about the Jews mirrors Japanese fascination with other similar fringe ideas, ranging from UFOs and ghosts to the occult. And still other point to the power of Western influence on Japanese culture, particularly through the influx of Christian missionaries and American military personnel in the post-World War II era, a portion of whom brought the infection of anti-Semitism to Japan. Some even point to the curious fact that, of all the plays of William Shakespeare, it was his anti-Semitic Merchant of Venice that was traditionally the most widely translated into Japanese. Millions of Japanese high school and college students were first exposed to the works of the world's great paywright-and to the image of the Jewish people-through the scurrilous cgaracter of Shylock.

But no matter the cause, the very existence of string currents of anti-Semitism in Japan, so far from their origins in Christian Europe, underscore the seriousness of the challenge faced by well-meaning people who want to understand and then eliminate the crazy intellectual and psichological burden that stereotyped imags of Jews impose on society.

Richard Levy's Antisemitism: a historical enyclopedia of prejudice and persecution

On page 364, under the entry for japan:

Knowledge of Jews arrived in Japan through the media of Western literature. In 1885, The Merchant of Venice became the first play by Shakespeare performed in Japan, and Shylock came to epitomize Jews in the Japanese imagination. The Merchant of Venice was used to teach Shakespeare in the public schoolsin Japan in most of the twentieth century. The image of Jews as unscrupulous moneylenders was reinforced by Western dictionaries and encyclopedia that contained derogatory definitions of Jews as usurers and racial aliens.