Merchant Mess: Round 2
Tuesday, March 11th by scott malia
The feedback on the British students’ protest of Shakespeare’s Anti-Semitism continues to mount. There are strong opinions both for and against the protest, further underlining the idea that this is no simple matter. One op-ed piece pointed out one specific point of contention that further complicates things. The students in question protested an exam about Shakespeare based on his Anti-Semitic depiction of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. This writer was quick to point out that Merchant was not covered on the exam. The play in question was The Tempest, and the editorial noted that the students’ complaints did not include the racist or colonialist issues present in the play that was actually covered by the exam.
Rather than re-debate the merits of the students’ argument (and question their motivations), I am intrigued by a question underneath this editorial. Is it possible to separate a writer from his or her work? Assuming no one found anything offensive about, say, Twelfth Night, could students study it without feeling their identities or values were being compromised? For those who love Shakespeare, that seems like an easy “yes,” but that’s because for most of us The Bard is not a controversial figure. What if, however, Adolf Hitler had written a sparkling romantic comedy in his youth? Would it be okay to do it? I do not think the students’ argument is anywhere near this extreme example, but the discussions it has generated bring up questions that must be addressed by scholars, teachers, actors, directors and anyone with a passion for Shakespeare.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:01 am
It’s the same perrenial debate about Mark Twain. A writer reflects his time; anti-semitism was an unfortunate fact of Shakespeare’s.
Your point about Hitler is well-taken, but one can go crazy with hypotheticals.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Discrimination’s a wonderful thing, isn’t it? All you need to say is “Here look, an example of X being bad” and people can immediately leap to “You said all X are bad! You’re an Xist!”
In the most obvious case, of course, we have Shylock. Shylock’s the bad guy in the play, therefore Shakespeare must really have been saying that all Jews are bad guys.
Or, maybe not. It’s not like he wrote a Shylock that ran around saying “Lookit me, I’m Jewish, I love to lend money!” Shakespeare gave us the “Hath not a Jew eyes..?” speech for Shylock, as one easy example. And then there’s the whole hypocrisy of the trial, where all the “good Christians” beg mercy from Shylock..until they have the upper hand, and then they show him none.
Is it possible that perhaps Shakespeare was *showing* us anti-Semitism as a deliberate attempt to hold a mirror up to our own nature? What connection can be made between the play, and Shakespeare’s own personal belief system? Is it really valid for a bunch of school kids, who probably never even read the play, to say “Oh, we know all we need to know about Shakespeare thankyouverymuch” based entirely on what they think they know?
The comparison to Hitler is so ludicrous it borders on offensive. Shakespeare put words on paper, the true meaning of which we are left to decipher 400 years later. Hitler did just a *smidge* more than that to demonstrate his true feelings.
The students deserve to fail. There is no “for” argument in this case. No logical person says “I don’t like something I read, therefore I will refuse to read any more.” That’s the very definition of close-minded.
http://www.shakespearegeek.com
March 12th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Ditto what Duane said…It never ceases to amaze (and sometimes amuse) me that people think Shakespeare was anti-Semitic and hated women when he actually portrayed Shylock in a pitiful, sad light (and the Christians not so nice), and his portrayal of women was amazing! He created some of the strongest, smartest women ever, and yet people will find a reason to say he was misogynistic.