Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1993 :: February ::
*MV*: Usury and Anti-Semitism
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 99.  Monday, 22 February 1993.
 
(1)     From:   Kay Stockholder <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 22 Feb 93 07:40:36 PST
        Subj:   SHK 4.0098  *MV* and Usury
 
(2)     From:   Rick Jones <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 22 Feb 1993 11:42:24 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   RE: SHK 4.0098  *MV* and Usury
 
(3)     From:   David Richman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 22 Feb 1993 14:13:30 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   RE: SHK 4.0097  Re: Shakespeare and Anti-Semitism
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kay Stockholder <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 22 Feb 93 07:40:36 PST
Subject: *MV* and Usury
Comment:        SHK 4.0098  *MV* and Usury
 
The way the play is anti-semitic is that it uses the image of the Jew to
signify a greed for money that infects the whole society. In that sense Shylock
as a Jew functions as a scapegoat for Shakespeare's efforts to separate money
from commerce, or to find a good version of money involvement. I don't think
that anyone doubts that in the process he penetrated to the troublesome
humanity within figures who are cast as scapegoats, but that doesn't prevent
the play from being anti-semitic.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rick Jones <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 22 Feb 1993 11:42:24 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 4.0098  *MV* and Usury
Comment:        RE: SHK 4.0098  *MV* and Usury
 
Thanks to Tom Loughlin for an important distinction.  It strikes me that there
are a couple of points to be made here.  First, someone suggested a while back
(during the "performance criticism" debate) that actors, directors, scholars
and teachers are engaged in different jobs with different audiences in mind.
True enough, but we're often the same people: using what we learn wearing one
hat to perform our other jobs better would seem to be only sensible.
 
Second, I didn't [mean to] suggest that Macklin's Shylock was tragic, only that
it was relatively more sympathetic than his predecessors' had been.  I think
this is a variation on Tom's idea: Macklin's Shylock was determined by his
actions, not predetermined from his first entrance: this is a major advance in
an era of fright wigs.
 
Finally, I've never seen what I would call a good production of _MV_, let alone
a successful one with a predominately comic Shylock.  So here's a plea to Jay
Halio (and anyone else) for more information...
 
Rick Jones
Cornell College
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Richman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 22 Feb 1993 14:13:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 4.0097  Re: Shakespeare and Anti-Semitism
Comment:        RE: SHK 4.0097  Re: Shakespeare and Anti-Semitism
 
I try to grapple with questions of anti-Semitism and modern and contemporary
performance in chapters two and four of my *Laughter, Pain, and Wonder*.
 
I found Hume Cronin's disturbingly comic Shylock at Stratford Ontario in
the mid-'seventies surprisingly effective.
 
David Richman
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.