The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0577 Tuesday, 20 June 2006
[1] From: Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 19 Jun 2006 16:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0572 The Big Question
[2] From: Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 2006 10:46:44 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0572 The Big Question
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul E. Doniger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 19 Jun 2006 16:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 17.0572 The Big Question
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0572 The Big Question
JD Markel writes: "I think the idea 'bad Jew' line originated in a book
by Martin Yaffe, though it was a more complex issue for him."
I'm not sure of the complexity of the issue, but I think the idea
predates Yaffe's Shylock and the Jewish Question (1997). In the BBC
series Playing Shakespeare and the accompanying book, RSC director John
Barton discusses this idea in one episode with Patrick Stewart and David
Suchet. I can't remember which episode it is, but it appears in chapter
10 of the book ("Exploring Character-Playing Shylock"). The video
series was produced in 1983-84 and the book published in '84 by Metheun
(now available from Anchor Books). I'm not sure that the idea originated
with John Barton, but he certainly discusses it a decade and more before
Yaffe's book. Is there an earlier book or paper by Yaffe?
Thanks,
Paul E. Doniger
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Donald Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 20 Jun 2006 10:46:44 -0500
Subject: 17.0572 The Big Question
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0572 The Big Question
Joseph Egert quotes me: "Don Bloom explains: 'I use "judicial murder" to
refer to the use (or misuse) of the law to cause the death of another
person without any justification on grounds of self-defense or other need.'"
And he goes on: "While sympathizing with its emotive thrust, I
nonetheless find the explanation as confusing and circular as the phrase
itself."
I find myself at a loss. What is circular about this definition? How
could it be made linear? If the problem is the qualifier "judicial" then
we are at an impasse, I'm afraid, because I have defined it as best I can.
I'm afraid I have to throw it back to JE. How would you define what
Shylock attempts to do to Antonio? He certainly attempts to have him
killed, though Antonio is no threat to his own life or the life of
someone he is trying to protect (say, Jessica). On the contrary, he does
so with malice (or something) aforethought, when Antonio is helpless.
What term do we use for this act?
As to the personal matter. I used "slander" because JE did, and issued
my qualification because I detest the name-calling that Hardy has so
successfully suppressed, and wished to make it clear that I had no
intention of getting into it, even inadvertently.
As to the straw man question, my effort to make clear what kind of
morality applies to MOV arises from a sense that people are evading the
issue of what Shylock does (or attempts to do). When they firmly state
their judgments then I can agree or disagree. But when we have a
constant sniping at Portia, Antonio, Bassanio, et al., mingled with an
equally consistent pity for Shylock then I am made uneasy as to what is
considered moral conduct and what is not.
If, as Ed Taft has suggested, everyone agrees with me (that Shylock is a
murderer, and a particularly cruel and malicious one), then I am indeed
beating up a straw man and will drop the subject. If they don't agree
with me, then I'm not and I can legitimately ignore the charge.
I find the matter of exonerating people of heinous offenses because they
or their kind have at some time been victimized very troubling.
Cheers,
don
PS. For a victim, Shylock seems to have done extremely well in Venice.
He operates in the same mercantile system as Antonio and has made
himself vastly wealthy. I do not say he isn't troubled by discriminatory
laws (we don't get much information on the subject), but they certainly
haven't affected his financial success.
PPS. Can someone point out the passage where Jessica is deserted by Lorenzo?
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.