I've changed my argument a fair amount, so here's the new deal. Just read the bold parts and you've got my argument. Sorry this is so long. I don't have the patience to make a short version right now :]
Intro:
·
William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice is among his most popularly performed plays.
However, it is also perhaps his most censored play. Anti-Semitic sentiments as well as discrimination against Africans and
other groups are foregrounded in the story and language of the play, and for
that reason it is often considered inappropriate to perform or read, in schools
and otherwise.
o
Examples of censorship
·
Scholars debate whether Merchant is really a
racist text or not
o
Examples of scholar conclusions/debates?
o
(section I just copied from
previous draft): Mika Nyoni notes in “The Culture of Othering:
An Interrogation of Shakespeare's Handling of Race and Ethnicity in The Merchant
of Venice and Othello” that Shylock’s ethnicity is mentioned
twenty-three times in the court scene alone (Act IV Scene 1). Similarly, when
Portia is faced with a Moroccan suitor, she detests him seemingly on the sole
basis of his “complexion” (II.7.87).
Nyoni concludes, based on these and other proofs, that “she is blatantly racist
and so was her creator, Shakespeare” (The Culture of Othering).
·
(section I just copied from
previous draft): Our knowledge of the
era in which this play was first performed tells us already that a generic English audience would have
been cruelly prejudiced against Jews—Lawrence Danson explains in his
historical notes “Jews in England and Venice” that “for most Englishmen, Jews
existed more as a nasty rumor or an ethnic joke than as ordinary people” (112).
·
So at the worst, historical proofs suggest
that Shakespeare and/or his audiences were just as hateful toward Shylock and
Jews generally as Antonio and Bassanio are.
In Shakespeare’s day, this would have been a horribly racist play. But this
(and whether or not this is even true) has little relevance to the question of
whether it should be performed or taught in modern settings, where this
particular kind of prejudice isn’t such a problem, like in US high school
classrooms.
·
(section I just copied from
previous draft): Sergio
Nunes Melo asserts in his “Deconstructing the
Transhistorical in Contemporary Productions of 'The Merchant of Venice,’”
“it is also important to recognize the extent to
which Merchant’s anti-Semitism is a construct because this topic has bearings
on the play’s transhistorical dimension.”
o
BYU’s production for children last
year, where they made it about bullying and not racism
Claim:
·
The text
itself actually never provides any definitive conclusion on whether or not
Shylock, the Christians, or any other characters are defined by their
respective “categories” (Jews, Africans, Christians, etc.); rather it
is just an exploration or even an
exhibition on the topic of whether they are judged that way or not, the
accuracy of those judgments, and their results.
·
In this way it may be read not as a racist text, but as a text about racism.
Indeed the specific prejudices in this play could even be replaced with more
modern applications. In that way it actually presents itself as a perfect avenue
for a positive discussion on the causes and effects of racism, and thus can be
appropriate for audiences of all ages and in all ages.
o
(section I just copied from
previous draft): While the debate rages over whether to read Merchant as an anti-Semitic text or not,
we will focus on this underlying question, because let’s face it—“ whether we
read the Jew as ‘bad’ or ‘good’ we cannot avoid the ‘us’ and ‘them’”
(O’rourke), and those are terms that any generation can understand.
o
“Every era is an invariably
generous source of pressing issues that can transhistorically interact with
topics of the past because these issues are shared by the viewing community, which
finds gratification in seeing them represented in connection with plays from
other cultural sources.” (deconstructing the transhistorical)
Shylock:
·
(section I just copied from
previous draft): To begin with, of course, there is Shylock. As Danson
summarizes in his “Shylock on Stage,” Shylock’s character has undergone many
different interpretations—from a comical stock character, to a serious villain,
to an object of pity (). To anyone hoping to come to a conclusion about the
historical racism of the text, this would present a problem. Yet, as mentioned
above, no matter who Shylock is in a given production, he is unavoidably a Jew,
and thus subject to discrimination—whether that is comical, frightening, or sad
makes little difference in that respect.
o
In
this way Shylock can be applied to many different kinds of prejudice and this need
not be interpreted as a comment specifically on Jews.
·
So, then, what does it mean that
Shylock is a Jew? Two opposing ideas are both present throughout
the play (Shylock deserving pity for the harsh judgment, and him being
deserving of cruelty for his own unkindness)
·
In today’s age of anti-racism we squirm to
read Antonio and the other Christians’ blatant prejudice against him for his
Jewishness.
o
Christians
being prejudiced:
§
“The phrase 'he (the devil) comes in the likeness of a Jew' tends to
generalize as if all Jews are carbon copies of each other in terms of their behaviour.” (culture of othering)
§
Quote from when Shylock explains
how Antonio has mistreated him often by insulting and even spitting on him for
being a Jew
o
But in our culture, where human
dignity and equality are so sacred to us, we pity him for being so judged:
§
(section I just copied from previous
draft): Nyoni suggests that the reason
he prefers seeing Antonio suffer to any kind of financial compensation is
because of his desire for “human dignity.” He goes on to explain: “It seems Shylock stomachs all the insults
stoically. If one gets so much in terms of insults and his heart hardens as a
result can we really blame him? If he gets an opportunity to revenge and
seizes that opportunity, bizarre as it might seem, do we not or should we not
at least understand where he is coming from especially when the perpetrator
threatens to heap even more insults?” (The Culture of Othering).
o
And even in the text, Shylock
makes a defense for himself: Act III, Scene I lines 44-54: if you prick me
won’t i bleed, etc
·
Yet
he still seems little concerned with proving to us that he deserves otherwise.
He is kind of a jerk.
o
Specific instances of Shylock’s
rudeness and/or cruelty
§
When he declines to eat with them
§
His insults in return to the
Christians
·
The
two opposing ideas are clearly both present throughout the play:
o
In these lines of Shylock’s both
ideas can be found: (section I just copied from previous draft): When Antonio
attempts to obtain mercy from him, he replies “Thou call’dst me dog before thou
hadst a cause,/But since I am a dog, beware my fangs” (3.3.7/8). Shylock here
directly addresses the difference between racial judgment and personal
judgment. His claim here is that he had been called a dog because of his
ethnicity, and this is no “cause.” But his second claim, that he is in fact a dog, complicates this. Our
understanding of this statement changes depending on what we assume Shylock
means when he says “dog.” Firstly, “dog” in this statement could be referring
directly to Shylock’s Jewishness; at this point he is all too aware that to
Antonio, “Jew” and “dog” are synonymous, and he is simply using the same
terminology—although to him, of course, the imitation would be ironic. In this
case, Shakespeare would be suggesting that race is, in fact, a justifiable avenue
for judgment, as Shylock claims that Antonio ought to “beware [his] fangs” because he is what he said he is—a Jew.
However, another reading is available to us: Shylock may be implying not that
he is a dog by nature, but that he has been turned into a dog by being treated
like one so much, and so now Antonio will, essentially, get a taste of his own
medicine.
o
Although he has refused to grant
mercy the entire play, he at least doesn’t beg for it at the end (“I am
content”(IV,1,410))
o
“As Shylock maneuvers himself into
the position of his slave-owning Christian antagonists, he inevitably adopts
the Christians’ habits of speech; and these habits hold certain implicit
consequences for Shylock’s ownership of Antonio, which, among other things,
becomes automatically comparable to the ownership of work animals.” (shylock
and the rise, 162) (talking about Shylock referring to Antonio as a dog)
o
When Portia enters the courtroom,
she has to ask which one is the merchant and which is the Jew. She can’t tell
on sight. (IV,1,176)
·
At the end of the play, we are left
even less sure of how to understand Shylock
o
Shylock’s
conversion introduces the question yet again: how do we judge Shylock? Jew?
Christian? Jew-turned-Christian? Does his conversion suddenly make him a
Christian and we like him now? Can he never shake the “ugliness” of his
Jewishness?
§
Antonio says he must “become a
Christian” (IV,1,403), then immediately after refers to him as a Jew (IV,1,
409).
§
Gratiano compares Shylock’s
christening directly to a hanging. (IV,1,416-18) This could be the hanging of
the Jew in him, and he will be born again from the water as a Christian. Or
death to Shylock because he is being forced to ‘convert’?
o
It
is remarkable that we never hear from Shylock again after he agrees to convert.
He does not appear at all in the last act. Obviously we are naturally curious
about what effect this all has on him. How does he do as a Christian? Is he
really content? Will this make him more
grumpy? Yet we are left to wonder, and Shakespeare
leaves these questions unanswered. He doesn’t proclaim that conversion has
changed Shylock and redeemed him, or show that he is the same person whether
Jew or Christian. We are left to wonder, and so we have to answer for ourselves
what we think might happen. There is no racism in this ending, except that it
makes us think about it.
The Christians:
·
Here we see the other side of stereotyping. The Christians in this play (Antonio, Portia,
Bassanio, Lorenzo, Gratiano, etc.) are all supposed to be wonderful, loving,
respectable.
o
“In one breath the
Duke pleads on behalf of Antonio whom he describes as 'a royal merchant' (Act
IV Scene 1 line 29) and expects 'a gentle answer Jew' (line 34) as if 'Jew'
refers to 'something' certainly subhuman.” (Culture of Othering)
o
“the very frequency with which the Venetians are called “Christians”
indicates the stress borne by the word as it tries to persuade the Tudor
audience to see Italian Catholics standing for the same values as English
Protestants” (Racism and Homophobia)
§
This is a historical application.
If used make sure to mention modern applications.
o
Numerous epithets
given to good Christians, loving words they say about each other which totally
glorify them.
§
Use specific examples (Bassanio telling Portia
abt Antonio, etc.)
·
Shakespeare’s
audiences may have overlooked the horrible things the Christians do to Shylock,
but modern readers naturally feel uncomfortable with the unkindness shown to
Shylock (although we still think of them as the good guys for some reason…something
there?) In this way it is less racist
now than it was before, and from it valuable lessons can be discerned as the
hypocrisy of judging and stereotyping becomes apparent
o
Speaking of Shylock: “if he indeed
is a villain, he is not the only one in The Merchant of Venice.” (culture of
othering)
o
“as Shylock’s identification with
dogs includes him in an underclass composed of slaves and other nonpersons, so
the bond of flesh inverts the standard relation between slavish Jew and free
Christian by asserting Shylock’s title to the prerogatives of the latter.Thus
as the relations between Jews and Christians are reversed, each term acquires
the qualities and associations of its opposite.” (shylock and the rise, 162)
o
“If Antonio has the audacity to threaten to
spit in the face of a potential lender of 3000 ducats because of a difference
of opinion on economic matters and religion who is the villain? Why did he
'stoop' so low as to borrow dirty money from a sworn enemy? Where were
the 'good' Christians he dished out money to gratis in the past?” (Culture of
Othering)
o
Talking about the way tons of
Christians were involved in robbing Shylock: “Doesn't all this Christian
involvement in inflicting pain on him understandably radicalize him even
further and deepen the fissure between the two antagonistic groups?” (culture
of othering)
o
Both Gratiano and Bassanio give up
the rings their wives gave them which they promised to keep. Even Jessica,
newly Christianized, gives up her father’s ring for a pet monkey. (cite)
o
They beg him for mercy but do not give it
(cite Portia’s speech: the quality of mercy is not strained) hypocrites
o
“Antonio's requirement smacks of
religious bigotry...The holier-than-thou attitude adopted by the so-called
Christians in The Merchant of Venice, which may be a reflection of the
Elizabethan Christian, is ill-advised” (culture of othering)
o
(Don’t use all of these quotes, probably)
Jessica:
·
So what about Jessica? She seems to fit into both the Christians and the Jews.
o
“The description 'Jew' is synonymous/associated with evil.
Launcelot bids farewell to Jessica whom he describes as the 'most beautiful
pagan, most sweet Jew'. By being beautiful, in Launcelot's view, facially and
especially in the heart, she is an exception -- Jews are expected to be ugly!”
(culture of othering)
o Although Shylock seemed to confirm Jewish stereotype of being a devil, Jessica counters it.
o
Act 3 Scene 5: conversation she has with Lancelet, in which they discuss whether or
not she is saved for having marrying a Christian, or doomed because she is born
a Jew. This is probably the most crucial conversation in the text about theme
of racism and judgment. The question of what Shylock’s conversion means also
hangs in part in the balance of this conversation. And yet it is left unresolved.
§
Do thorough reading and analysis of these
lines
·
In other
ways Jessica is both subjected to and rises above discrimination: she is a
woman in a patriarchal society
o
“According to Launcelot, Jessica
is a Jew because Shylock is; had her father been a Christian, she would be one
as well (3.5.9-10). 2 Leah's status as a Jew is unquestioned in the play, but
why is her racial identity irrelevant to that of her daughter?” (Jessica’s
Mother)
o
“patriarchal power, ubiquitously
present and challenged in Merchant, is often perceived as a culturally
specific, an idiosyncratic, or a vanishing practice in the West nowadays;
hence, it impossible for a contemporary production to recover in exactitude the
effect that the performance of Jessica’s effrontery had on the original
audiences. However, in the twenty-first
century, playgoers can still empathize with resistance to patriarchal power.
For example, if we focus on how patriarchal...; and even if we could no longer
detect traces of patriarchal oppression anywhere, we would still have the
capacity to identify with the representation of the conflict by analogy: we can
relate to it by amplifying how we live any kind of power relation.”
(deconstructing the trans)
Portia’s Suitors:
·
Portia
demonstrates another kind of prejudice when she rejects the prince of Morocco:
o
Portia objects to the Prince of
Morocco because she thinks black people are ugly, or because she thinks the
race is inferior, or what? Her objections to other suitors are their
personality. She doesn’t even mention the prince’s personality or manliness,
just his complexion. The other descriptions are included to demonstrate this
prejudice? More on this.
Lancelet’s Baby:
·
Finally,
Shakespeare mentions in passing that Lancelet, a white Christian male, has
impregnated a black woman. He only mentions this very briefly, again leaving us
uncertain what this baby’s fate will be. We know that as a black child it will
not live the life its father does, but at the same time it is the mother that
is black, and it has a white father, so if we look at Jessica, we remember that
her mother isn’t even a part of the picture determining her race.
o
More research
on this…
o
Still need to figure out where this piece is going.
Conclusion:
·
So much debate over how to read the racism in
this text has arisen because it really
leaves the questions about prejudice, judgment and stereotype unanswered.
o
“Merchant’s “happy ending” is an
unconvincing resolution to the play’s conflicts from every angle: Antonio’s
unexplained inadequacy throughout the play; Shylock’s exclusion from the final
act, notwithstanding his official inclusion in the community; and the
questionably easy artificiality with which Portia resolves the pending
problems. These three outcomes suggest incompleteness.” (deconstructing the
trans) ?
o
“: usury versus charity, justice
versus mercy, oath-swearing versus untrustworthiness, and Judaism versus
Christianity in Merchant are representations of systems that lack integrity.
Here are a few events that demonstrate how fragile these markers are in
relation to the systems they mark: in order to do his nominally Christian
charity, Antonio resorts to usury; in order to debase Antonio, Shylock
dispenses with usury; Portia requires mercy from Shylock, but she does not
offer any in exchange when it is clearly her turn to do so; the use of words
that rhyme with “lead” in the song that serves as moral support for Bassanio’s
choice of the casket in 3.2 suggests that Portia might be breaking her promise
to abide by her father’s will; Bassanio’s and Gratiano’s vows of fidelity to
Portia and Nerissa are flagrantly broken; and Shylock’s acceptance of the
court’s deal clearly shows that he breaks his “oath in heaven, [ . . . ]
lay[ing] perjury upon [his] soul” (4.1.225-6). “ (deconstructing the trans)
·
In the end
we must ask ourselves: “What if Antonio’s and
Shylock’s spirits share significant commonalities?
After all, the arguably highest metaphysical topic of the play stipulates that
what hinders the soul from hearing the celestial harmony is “this muddy vesture
of decay [that] / Doth grossly close it in” (5.2.64-5).” (deconstructing the
trans)
No comments:
Post a Comment