The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0548 Tuesday, 21 August 2007
[1] From: Virginia Byrne <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Aug 2007 10:59:14 EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0537 Redheads
[2] From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Aug 2007 13:29:27 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0542 Redheads
[3] From: Donald Bloom <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Aug 2007 15:12:45 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 18.0542 Redheads
[4] From: Robert Projansky <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Aug 2007 15:18:23 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0542 Redheads
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Virginia Byrne <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Aug 2007 10:59:14 EDT
Subject: 18.0537 Redheads
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0537 Redheads
I went to Tanglewood Saturday night and noted that in Berlioz's
DAMNATION OF FAUST that the devil's red hair is referred to (sorry for
dangling the preposition).
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Aug 2007 13:29:27 -0400
Subject: 18.0542 Redheads
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0542 Redheads
Like Hardy, I too have been enjoying the recent threads. It seems to me
that some of them -- like this one and the dinner/supper discussion --
highlight the seams between classical historicism and presentism. David
Basch's post, in particular, illustrates how a particular soio-political
outlook can color our perceptions of Elizabethan/Jacobean attitudes,
even if it leads to patent inconsistencies. Mr. Basch begins by noting
(without citation of authority) that
["Elizabethans seem to have had a knee jerk reaction about the evil-ness
of Jews, a condition that supposedly showed itself like a badge in what
Jews looked like-Jews that they had never seen. Hence Shylock was given
a red wig and big nose to make this sentiment most apparent."]
Then after observing that modern "commentators truly take account of the
character of Shylock as revealed by his lines in the play and the
context of those lines that we get a more humanized sense of him in
theatrical performances," Mr. Basch says,
["That the 'red wig' is not Shakespeare's characterization of Shylock is
made abundantly clear when Portia arrives at the Venetian court and has
to ask 'Which is the Jew and which the merchant?'"]
The only way I can harmonize the two bracketed quotations is to construe
Mr. Basch's thesis as contending that Elizabethans in general had a
stereotypical view of Jewish appearance but Shakespeare did not share
that view, even though he evidently allowed his character to be
portrayed in the stereotypical fashion. That thesis -- if, in fact, I
have correctly interpreted what Mr. Basch is saying -- is not inherently
illogical; but it does require more support than one eight-word passage
from the play and an unsupported idea of the makeup used on the
Elizabethan stage.
So far as I have ever read, the red wig was introduced in the
McCready/Irving era. I would be very interested in any primary source
for the notion that it was current in 1596-1600. As for the "big nose,"
I am not aware that this ever was a theatrical convention, although I
suspect it was used occasionally in the 19th Century and early 20th.
Again, what support is there for its being conventional? James
Shapiro's section on the supposed racial distinctiveness of Jews says
nothing about either hair color or proboscis dimensions (J. Shapiro,
Shakespeare and the Jews 170-73 [Columbia U.P. 1996]).
Mr. Basch's construction of Portia's question at the beginning of the
trial scene is reasonable; it is certainly possible that the audience is
being told that there is no outward way to distinguish between the
merchant and the moneylender. But that straightforward interpretation,
which seems to me to be the least dramatically satisfying, is certainly
not the only one. For example, the line could be played for laughs, as
I have seen done to great effect. Or -- my personal favorite -- the
line might be taken as a false indication by Portia/Balthazar that s/he
is completely evenhanded.
In short, it seems to me that Mr. Basch has inadvertently provided
support for the idea I floated during the roundtable that theoretical
labels like "historicism," "presentism," etc., say more about the
critics than about the author or his plays.
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Donald Bloom <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Aug 2007 15:12:45 -0500
Subject: 18.0542 Redheads
Comment: RE: SHK 18.0542 Redheads
I confess to being a little frustrated by many of the responses to this
topic.
On the one hand, it seems to be generally true that, when associated
with Judas or with Jews, red hair was a sign of an evil character.
On the other hand, red hair is a moderately common variant among people
of Celtic and Germanic origins -- including, as has been pointed out,
the queen and both her parents.
I would gather then that there is no negative association with red hair
outside the Jew / Judas association.
Or is there?
At various times people with red hair have been thought to have "fiery"
tempers and a higher degree to sexual lust than others (see Gulliver). I
also recall reading somewhere (Laurence Durrell, I believe, but other
places, too) that red hair was (and is) considered unlucky in the Arabic
world.
Does anybody know what's going on here?
With regard to temper and lust, we can guess that both are suggested by
the fiery quality of the hair and the fiery quality of traits-rather
simple, not to say simple-minded, folkloric association. But is that the
thinking of experts in folklore?
With regard to Jews and Judas, does anybody know why or how they came to
be associated with red hair? It would seem to be a very odd sort of
connection, or does it have a common origin with the unluckiness still
apparently sensed in the Middle East? Did one cause the other?
If anybody has any authoritative sources to supply, I would love to have
them.
don
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Projansky <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Aug 2007 15:18:23 -0700
Subject: 18.0542 Redheads
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0542 Redheads
David Basch says:
That the "red wig" is not Shakespeare's characterization of Shylock is
made abundantly clear when Portia arrives at the Venetian court and has
to ask "Which is the Jew and which the merchant?" Obviously, Shylock has
no distinguishing horns.
If there's anything obvious at all in that question, it's that who is
who is obvious, not obscure. Portia doesn't have to ask anything because
she is a total fraud here, appearing as 'Balthasar' to fix the case
against Shylock and get her husband's pal off the hook. His/ her
question is a phony one. She knows who's who.
The question may be many things: a smokescreen to establish - falsely -
the judge's ignorance of the parties, or an expression - also false - of
the judge's impartiality; maybe it's emblematic of the philosophical
and scholarly judge's indifferent ignorance of the everyday 'real'
world, or perhaps it's or an ironic dig at Antonio, or a place for a
sight gag re the judge's nearsightedness. Of course we can't know what
WS intended that Q to mean as he wrote it. I suspect he meant all or
most of the above (none of which does any disservice to the play), and
all of these notions essentially depend on Shylock being easily
distinguishable from Antonio. The audience knows who is who and unless
the difference is obvious the line serves very little theatrical
purpose. What I think is obvious is that on Shakespeare's stage which
man was which must have been made obvious -- maybe with a hook-nosed
Shylock sitting there redly bewigged.
Bob Projansky
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail 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.
|
