Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Mgr. Zuzana Biravská
The Drama of the Jew in Arnold Wesker’s The Merchant
Bachelor‟s Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: prof. Mgr. Milada Franková, CSc., M.A.
2015
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
…………………………………………….. Author‟s signature
Acknowledgement
In the first place I would like to thank my supervisor prof. Milada Franková for
her kind guidance, her valuable advice and immense motivation.
I would also like to thank my family and my friends, who became a great part of this thesis thanks to the hours of the colorful conversations I could spend with them and
thus find some conclusions and new points of view on the topic of minorities or about
their perception of the character of Shakespeare‟s Shylock.
Last but not least I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity I got to be able to spend a semester in England as an Erasmus student at the University of Bristol
and therefore I could use their library and get a new life experience, which formed my
opinion about stereotypes. Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 1 1. The Merchant: Wesker‟s Shylock ...... 3 1.1. Impulse to Writing The Merchant ...... 3 1.2. About ...... 3 1.3. Shylock‟s Character ...... 7 1.4. Cultural – Social Background ...... 11 2. The Merchant (of Venice?): Two Plays about Shylock ...... 18 2.1. The Main Differences ...... 18 2.2. Anti-Semitism in The Merchant of Venice ...... 19 2.3. Stereotyping ...... 22 3. Shylock, the Jew: Other Examples of Shylock ...... 27 3.1. Shylock by Mark Leiren-Young ...... 27 3.2. Yasser by Abdelkader Benali ...... 28 3.3. Other references to MV ...... 30 Conclusion ...... 32 Works Cited and Consulted ...... 35 Summary ...... 40 Résumé ...... 41
Introduction
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual.”
Ayn Rand
We all are being misunderstood. Every person is an individual. People share similarities but each human being consists of a unique combination of these similarities.
Thus, it could be said that each person has experienced feelings of loneliness, rejection or incomprehension at some point in their lives; feelings by which minorities are afflicted the most. We all are being misunderstood, therefore, sometimes, we all are minorities.
Arnold Wesker, who is an important British playwright living in Wales, writes also about what it means to be a Jewish minority. He grew up in a Jewish community in the
East End of London, which became a crucial inspiration for his writing. The East End for
Wesker felt like Shylock‟s Venetian ghetto in its mentality and that is why he always “felt very much in tune with Shylock” (Leeming 5). In 1983 Wesker introduces his response to
The Merchant of Venice (MV), a play about Shakespeare‟s notorious Jew Shylock.
The reason for feeling the necessity for responding to such a great man like
Shakespeare with his own version about Shylock is the fact that after watching Jonathan
Miller‟s production he was, “struck by the play‟s irredeemable anti-semitism. . . . It was . . . the immediate impact I [Wesker] actually experienced. . . . Here was a play which . . . could emerge as nothing other than a confirmation of the Jew as bloodsucker” (Wesker, The
Merchant L). This made him come up with a sympathetic Shylock – someone whose motives for his behaviour would be clear and comprehensible.
For the audience it might be crucial to identify with Shylock and to understand him. As mentioned at the very beginning we all are individuals and thus minorities in a way.
1
That is why Shylock‟s character as a minority character and his feelings might remind the audience of some particular moments of their lives and therefore should call for empathy.
The aim of the thesis is to discuss the theme of minorities in Wesker‟s The
Merchant as well as dealing with minority way of thinking and the degree of anti-Semitism in
Shakespeare‟s MV and thus the necessity of Wesker‟s response by writing The Merchant.
The thesis is divided into three main chapters. The very first part considers possible answers to questions such as why Wesker needed to write The Merchant and why it is important that Shylock‟s character would be sympathetic. How he succeeded in creating another Shylock and the literary means that Wesker uses to evoke sympathy for Shylock such as using historical facts and emphasizing cultural and social background in which
Shylock lived are discussed as well.
After getting acquainted with the core play of this thesis, The Merchant, the main differences between Wesker‟s version and Shakespeare‟s one are discussed. Moreover, another question is raised, namely whether Shakespeare‟s Shylock was really no sympathetic character. The answer might be found in the debate about the degree of anti-
Semitism and stereotyping in MV, which follows.
To take a case in point, other plays depicting the character of Shylock are introduced in the very last part of the thesis to sketch in the literary context of dealing with this topic.
2
1. The Merchant: Wesker‟s Shylock
1.1. Impulse to Writing The Merchant
Wesker decided to create his own Shylock after watching Jonathan‟s Miller production of The Merchant of Venice, who in Wesker‟s words introduced a “confirmation of the Jew as the bloodsucker” (Wesker, The Merchant L). That is why Wesker “can‟t [keep quiet] . . ., but [is] like Shylock . . . unforgiving, unforgiving of the play‟s contribution to the world‟s astigmatic view and murderous hatred of the Jew” (Wesker, The Merchant L).
As another argument for starting to deal with this subject Wesker asserts that in
Shylock he could not recognise a Jew he knew (Wesker, The Merchant L-Li). He is convinced it is necessary to create a play where a shift in Shylock‟s character would be presented and so the new Shylock would not be, like Shakespeare‟s Shylock, a villain not because of “his individual characteristic, as with Molière‟s Harpagon, but simply because he is a Jew” (Wesker, The Merchant xxi).
In addition, Wesker realizes three aspects in particular which must be considered while writing about a Jewish character like Shylock. It is the fact of the existence of concentration camps, the state of Israel and last but not least still present prejudice against the Jews (Parlak 126). Wesker is convinced the play must have humanistic principles, “He wrote such a play [The Merchant] to show that the Jews are not as presented in The Merchant of Venice” (Parlak 129).
1.2. About
For this reason Arnold Wesker‟s The Merchant could be described as a Jewish play, a historical drama as well as a modernization of Shakespeare (Lindemann 132). It is a
Jewish play as in comparison to Shakespeare‟s original the play deals with the Jewish topic quite in detail; a historical drama as the audience gets acquainted with many historical facts due to the conversations among the Jewish characters but also through the encounter with
3 the Christians. And last but not least it definitely is a modernization of Shakespeare even though as discussed later in this chapter Arnold Wesker prefers the term „answer‟ to
„adaptation‟ - the term popular with many critics.
The main problem which the play deals with is the bond between two very good friends – the Jew Shylock and the Christian Antonio. Antonio asks Shylock to lend him money for his friend but as the Venetian law does not allow any money lending by Jews without a contract, Antonio insists on having one with Shylock – mainly to make sure
Shylock will not have any problems with the law:
ANTONIO: Shylock! The law says, in these very words, „It is forbidden to
enter into dealings with a Jew without sign and sealing of a bond, which bond
must name the sums borrowed, specify the collateral, name the day, the hour
to be paid, and –
TOGETHER. – and be witnessed by three Venetians, two patricians and one
citizen, and then registered! (Wesker, The Merchant 24)
Shylock unwillingly changes his mind about lending money to a good friend based just on trust. However, to show what he thinks of this nonsensical law, he decides to emphasize the absurdity of the whole situation through signing an absurd bond:
SHYLOCK. We‟ll have a bond. . . . A lovely, loving nonsense bond. To mock
the law. . . . Barbaric laws? Barbaric bonds! Three thousand ducats against a
pound (sic) your flesh.
......
SHYLOCK. Madness for the mad.
ANTONIO. Idiocies for the idiots.
......
ANTONIO. They mock our friendship –
SHYLOCK. – We mock their laws. (Wesker, The Merchant 25-6)
4
Similarly to the original play by Shakespeare, Antonio is not able to give the money back and together with Shylock they are forced to play their game even at the court until
Portia comes with another solution of the situation, which makes the bond invalid.
Everybody‟s relieved, Shylock especially. However, not for long: Shylock exactly as in MV is accused of plotting “against the life of a citizen of Venice” (Wesker, The Merchant 79) and all his books are taken from him.
However, as mentioned earlier, Wesker “does not so much rewrite or reinterpret
Shakespeare as answer him” (Sicher 60). The well-known “Hath not a Jew eyes” is said by
Lorenzo because Shylock – as he himself says – does not want apologies for his humanity:
SHYLOCK. No, no, NO! I will not have it. . . . I do not want apologies for my
humanity. (Wesker, The Merchant 76)
The original meaning of the speech by Shakespeare was meant to “underline Shylock‟s equality, in The Merchant they [the words] are being ridiculed. What was meant to be a defence speech, sounds like mockery” (Kroh n. pag.). In Sicher‟s view this is Shylock‟s reaction on “Wesker‟s questioning of Shakespeare‟s humanness” by Lorenzo, “where it becomes an accusation of the Jew‟s ungrateful perfidy in return for the Christian‟s tolerance. This the Jew will not accept.” (64). Lindemann adds that this dialog represents:
. . . die ganz persönliche Antwort eines betroffenen Juden auf jegliche Form
des Antisemitismus, gleichgültig ob sie ihm im Werk des großen Shakespeare
oder in Reaktionen von dessen modernen Theaterpublikum begegnet. (130)
. . . the very personal answer of the affected Jew by a certain form of Anti-
Semitism, no matter whether they come across that in the work of great
Shakespeare or as a reaction by the modern theatregoers.
This part of the drama is one of the best examples proving that Wesker was not trying to rewrite Shakespeare. It is crystal clear that Arnold Wesker‟s Shylock became an answer by the contemporary author feeling the necessity to react to one of the most discussed
5
Shakespeare‟s plays. Wesker states, “It was to be a play based on the same three stories which Shakespeare used for his play THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. Not . . . a rewrite of Shakespeare‟s play, but an entirely new and original work using the same source materials” (qtd. in Lindemann 132). The source materials are at least two old stories that were Shakespeare‟s inspiration for writing The Merchant of Venice. The first one is the tale Il
Pecorone or The Simpleton, a story about a Jewish money-lender, who lent money for a pound of flesh. The other one is from the Gesta Romanorum, which is the base of the story about
Portia‟s suitors and caskets (Mabillard n. pag.).
Besides the above mentioned opinions, Efraim Sicher, too, does not consider The
Merchant an adaptation. For him this is rather a play about the impossibility of catching up with the ideals of two friends (60). Both Antonio and Shylock are exceptional individuals in their societies: Antonio among Venetians, Shylock in his Jewish community (Sicher 63). In spite of the cultural difference Antonio and Shylock are very good friends, which proves that at least this is possible (Parlak 127).
Considering friendship as such as the main theme of the drama, the dramatic conflict might be missed out as Leeming notices when she writes: “Rosemary Say couldn‟t see where the dramatic conflict lay, if Shylock and Antonio were friends” (125-6).
Nevertheless, this friendship is set in a particular place, which here is Venice. In Venice there were not the same rules for the Jews and Venetians, which had then a serious impact on otherwise something as pure and beautiful as friendship. The reality, in which Antonio and Shylock live, does not make it possible to have friendship based on mutual trust.
Except for the main theme about friendship and the absurdity of law the play deals with a range of other topics that more or less overlap, such as hypocrisy, pretending, rights and freedom, or inescapable fate. Another theme is the dealing with the parents-children relationship. Not only is the “generation-gap rebellion” as an up-dated problem for the
6 contemporary audience involved (Leeming 125). This theme includes also the cultural perspective when Shylock talks about Christians as the children of Jews.
Efraim Sicher mentions also mismarriage as another theme when Jessica suddenly happens to choose between who she is and Lorenzo, as well as certain “world-weariness in recognition of the hypocrisy and vanity of Venetian society and the killing boredom of public life” expressed by Antonio‟s melancholy (62).
The greatest room, however, Wesker left for the Jewish topic. In the following part of this chapter the means that Wesker used for this purpose will be discussed.
1.3. Shylock‟s Character
The main Jewish character as well as the protagonist of Wesker‟s play is Shylock.
Within the play it may seem that Shylock‟s position as the Jew is restricted in many ways.
The strength of Shylock, though, lies in his activity. As Sicher in his essay puts it: “Wesker‟s
Shylock represents „a free spirit‟” (Sicher 66). Shylock proves his independence once again when he denies to “break his bond” as he “has cause to act” (Sicher 66).
The whole text is written from the point of view of Shylock and Jessica especially experiencing the harsh conditions of what it means being a foreigner somewhere. Sad symbols such as a yellow hat or books in particular evoke sympathetic feelings in the audience:
SHYLOCK. If I‟d been a damned physician. I‟d not have to wear this damned
yellow hat every time I took a walk. . . . (Wesker, The Merchant 38)
A similarly sad symbol are the books. After Shylock‟s long monologue about the importance of knowledge and books (about knowledge is being talked as about spring), which represents his major interest and the most important value. The bells from the
Ghetto remind Shylock there is sometimes nothing we can do when our freedom is not completely in our hands:
7
Bells ring. Time to return to the Ghetto. ANTONIO rises to give SHYLOCK his yellow
hat. He looks at ANTONIO and shrugs sadly, as though the hat is evidence to refute all
he’s said.
ANTONIO. What little lost spring can help you now? (Wesker, The Merchant
44)
This part of the drama becomes one of the most impressive moments when the audience realizes the paradox of Shylock‟s words and the reality he lives in.
Jessica as the second most important character, whose point of view of the Jewish community matters, is Shylock‟s daughter but a completely different kind of person in some respects. In Lorenzo‟s words “He‟s proud, she‟s modest. He imagines knowledge is all, she lives in the world” (Wesker, The Merchant 28). Even though Shylock is a very wise man, unfortunately often he is not able to use his knowledge in his own life. The audience finds out about Shylock a lot thanks to his daughter and his sister. Jessica knows him maybe even better than he himself. That is why sometimes there might be found many reflections made by Jessica herself.
Jessica says about Shylock he is “full of tight, restricting little codes.” And is tired of his “scheme of things” (Wesker, The Merchant 34-5). She is criticising the hypocrisy. He is trying so hard to obey all the religious rules that very often he forgets the really important things. There are always some things that the rules do not mention. The life is so diverse that no rule can include all situations in life. Then it is more important to be able to re- evaluate the importance of the rules when there are some brand new situations. Shylock is a typical perfectionist and that is why he considers his planned life that includes also the pattern Jessica should follow as the only important and is not able to change his plan no matter what happens. He does not count on any other changeable things such as Jessica‟s own will. He misses out on flexibility. He fights against the reality, is not able to accept it.
8
The same problem with not respecting the daughter‟s own will might be observed in the case of Portia, whose father wrote a testament which decides whom Portia should marry:
PORTIA. . . . Oh father, father, father! What were you thinking of? (Wesker,
The Merchant 46)
Jessica, though, becomes active in the disagreement with her father‟s will, just like he is in his disagreement with the law of Venice. The consequence in Jessica‟s case is that she runs away from home with Lorenzo and sends only a letter to her father:
SHYLOCK. „Dear Father. I am not what you would like me to be, and what I
am, brings me to this. (Wesker, The Merchant 56)
Shylock was apparently expecting too much. That was not the reality back then, though.
His approach towards Jessica was as if he was blind. The impact of that is his losing of his daughter and as Sicher comments, this letter is “more or less a suicide note of a daughter and a Jew . . .” (62).
More about Shylock is said when Portia and Jessica meet. Portia is interested in the character of Jessica‟s father:
PORTIA. Tell me what you love in him.
JESSICA. I loved his questioning the wisdom of age, his clamouring to give
youth its voice, his contempt for what men wrote in books. His strength, his
seriousness, his devotion. I loved, I suppose, escape from oppressive
expectations.
PORTIA. And now?
JESSICA. Now, I‟m feeling his strength is arrogance, his seriousness is
pedantry, his devotion is frenzy. . . . (Wesker, The Merchant 68)
9
Jessica talks about Shylock as about the wise, strong, serious and devoted man. At the same time she realizes all these characteristics might become perceived in a negative way depending on how much they‟re being practised with love and honesty.
Jessica, Portia and Nerissa keep talking and then they come to the point where they interconnect the character of Shylock, his weaknesses and the power of the state:
JESSICA. . . . The Jews have need of the laws of Venice and so – the bond, in
defiance.
......
NERISSA. Perhaps it isn‟t law that‟s needed. (Wesker, The Merchant 69)
Both Antonio and Shylock try to respect the law and to obey all possible rules. The same applies to the state and court. Nevertheless, sometimes there are new situations for which the law and rules are not enough. Always it is important to engage the common sense, too, and to be confident of our human priorities. Nonconformist way of thinking can now and then lead people to the new and sometimes even much more human way of thinking.
Another important person coming up with useful opinions and comments on
Shylock is his sister Rivka. According to Leeming, “his sister Rivka‟s speech to him
[Shylock] is the key to his character . . .” (Leeming 126). She mentions just like Jessica his arrogance, inability to accept reality or to become more modest:
RIVKA. . . . But you can’t pretend you‟re educated, just as you can‟t pretend
you‟re not an alien or that this Ghetto has no walls. Pretend, pretend,
pretend! All your life! Wanting to be what you‟re not. Imagining the world as
you want.” (Wesker, The Merchant 57)
She again emphasizes Shylock‟s problem with accepting the reality and being able to see what his situation really is like.
10
1.4. Cultural – Social Background
Wesker was not trying to create an ideal example of a Jew. As it is obvious from the previous chapter, Shylock has negative as well as positive characteristic features. To have the possibility of showing them all, he uses proportionally more Jewish characters and in general more characters who know Shylock and are able to talk about him, both in a positive as well as in a negative way. Thus, Shylock is a real character, not just a caricature described from only one point of view. The observations and comments made by Shylock‟s friends, family and his community make it possible for the audience to form their own opinion of Shylock‟s personality.
The same approach takes the play to the Jewish community and to the Jews in general. As Glenda Leeming writes in the commentary on The Merchant:
[The anti- Jewish] attitude is not left in the background – it is discussed and
questioned explicitly. Proportionally more of his characters are Jewish and
many scenes are devoted to their lives, showing both their pleasant
unexceptional personalities and the effect on them of hostile prejudice.
(Wesker, The Merchant xxi)
The scenes depicting lives of the Jews are the crucial ones in dealing with the Jewish question. Due to the insight to Jewish daily life and as a result of conversations among the
Jews, there is room for the audience to think about the conditions which the Venetian Jews had to live in. On account of these reflections it is more probable for the audience to get a better understanding of the motives of what they did.
As a part of the Jewish daily life the audience becomes a witness of the typical
Jewish sorrows of that time and can listen to their history as if they were right in the middle of the Jewish community listening to everything, which is being discussed:
REBECCA. In addition to which the Lisbon and Evora Tribunals have tried
Anusim arrested in towns situated in the Eastern department of Braganza.
11
USQUE. Fifty people burnt at the stake.
REBECCA. Old women, young men, relatives, friends. (Wesker, The Merchant
12)
And:
RIVKA. Are there still Jews in England?
REBECCA. Hardly any. . . .
USQUE. Perhaps that accounts for the massacre of London. (Wesker, The
Merchant 14)
These and many other moments in the text make Shylock and the whole Jewish community more authentic.
In spite of that, some critics do not perceive the amount of historical facts as an advantage. It is the insufficient action in the first half of the play due to many historical facts and literary attitudes to the Jews that most critics complain about. As Leeming puts it:
The main criticism of the play was that there was too much historical
explanation – a „massive teach-in on historical and literary attitude to the Jews‟,
Sheridan Morley called it, and Sally Aires in Plays and Players noted that most of
this came in Act One. (Leeming 129)
Nonetheless, Aires‟s comment would not be valid in the latter version of The Merchant called simply Shylock. Shylock (1989) as the ninth version of the play was written 13 years after The Merchant (1976). In Shylock the order of scenes differs and Portia‟s and Nerissa‟s conversation is already introduced as the second scene in the first act, while in The Merchant it only comes as the first scene of the second act.
The so called “massive teach-in on historical and literary attitude to the Jews”
(Leeming 129) and its effect on the audience depends very much on the way the director works with that. As Leeming noted:
12
. . . how knowledge survived the dark ages to blossom into Renaissance, . . . is
written as a special turn to be performed. . . . The stage directions says: „Then
Shylock tells his story with mounting excitement and theatricality, using
whatever is around him for props, moving furniture, food perhaps even
people, like men on his chessboard of history. (Leeming 129)
Not only from history is the audience constantly getting acquainted with the difficult conditions of being a Jew in Venice of that time. The conversations include some very personal statements and thus the picture of life in Ghetto as such becomes clearer:
SHYLOCK. . . . Ghetto is constantly filled with visitors, . . . they‟re always
coming to attend the festivals, listen to the music. Very exotic we are. We
fascinate them all, whether from England where they‟ve expelled us, or Spain
where they burn us. (Wesker, The Merchant 7)
From testimonies like this it is obvious that the Jews are experiencing the feeling of being constantly strangers. That is the reason why they feel they are a minority. Considering not only that they are but they even feel like a minority, the Jewish question and how it is dealt with it might be subsequently applicable to a more general problem – minorities as such.
Antonio mentions the word minority and what exactly it means in the Venetian context explicitly:
ANTONIO. . . . You are a Jew, Shylock. Not only is your race a minority, it is
despised. Your existence here in Venice, your pleasures, your very freedom to
be sardonic or bitter is a privilege, not a right. (Wesker, The Merchant 25)
The real reason for feeling sorry for Shylock here is “not because he was a „poor Jew‟, but a man oppressed by his time and the law he depended on” (Kroh n. pag.). Today we could compare his situation with any minority and their difficulties we are closely familiar with and that would evoke sympathetic feelings.
13
Even though Shylock is wise and has many other qualities so that he might be important for the whole society, many people would not care about him at all just because of their prejudice against the Jews (Kroh n. pag.).
Clearly, this is not only Shylock‟s problem. Another story narrated quite in detail is Jessica‟s story. Her way of dealing with the difficult situation she was born into is in a way similar to Shylock‟s pretending and not respecting the reality as such. Jessica also longs for another way of life and is “seeking to lose the handicap of being born a Jew” (Sicher
61). That is why she decides to run away from where she comes from. Jessica similarly to
Shylock does not accept the reality and through her escape she tries to erase the Ghetto from her daily life.
In Belmont, the place that Jessica switches for Venetian Ghetto, she meets Portia.
Portia is depicted as a person very much interested in the life of the Ghetto partially thanks to her tutor in Hebrew studies, who came from the Ghetto. When Portia asks Jessica to tell her about the Ghetto, it is Jessica‟s opportunity to speak out about things happening behind the walls. And even though it was unbearable for Jessica to stay in the Ghetto and help her people from inside, she is now getting the chance to help the Jewish minority at least through not being silent about the dreadful events taking place there. As a result
Portia and thus the audience might start listening to the sad description of the living conditions of the Ghetto:
JESSICA. . . . the quarter is so small.
PORTIA. And the buildings. So tightly packed together.
JESSICA. Yes. Always a danger of fire. Last week one young man, a friend in
fact, threw himself into flames attempting to save his mother. (It’s all too much
for her. She is weeping. . . .) (Wesker, The Merchant 68)
Extracts like the previous one describing what exactly it means to be born a Jew in Venice help perfectly understand what it feels like to be one of them. The audience perceive the
14 feeling people might have when they are in the middle of a situation which they cannot have significant influence on just because they were born as the “wrong” nation.
The idea that Jessica feels as if she was born as the “wrong” nation is supported by quite a few remarks made by some of the characters thinking in the anti-Semitic way.
For instance Gratiano, who is one of the most anti-Semitic characters in The Merchant talks about “a nation turned upside down” (Wesker, The Merchant 27). As in Shakespeare
Gratiano refers to Shylock only as „the Jew‟ (Herman n. pag.). Nevertheless, Lorenzo, too, is speaking about the Jewish nation as about “a nation without principle” (Wesker, The
Merchant 27).
In many dialogues the tension between Jews and Christians can be noticed. The situation in Venice is commented on by Shylock when he says:
SHYLOCK. . . . You have us for life, gentlemen, for life. Learn to live with us.
The Jew is the Christian‟s parent. Difficult, I know. Parent-children
relationships, always difficult, and even worse when murder is involved
within the family. But what can we do? It is the family! Not only would I be
your friend but I have to be your friend.” (39, Wesker)
He realizes the difficulties caused by two nations living within one city. The differences are obvious. At the same time, he tries to look at the issue from the bird‟s eye view – trying to feel less involved in the situation. Shylock is aware of the fact that this is the reality right now. The Jews live in Venice, have their homes there, as well as the Christians. The family, the environment, the country, the nation, religious belief are all part of the reality everybody was born into. It is possible to lose touch with one‟s own family, to move from one country to another, or to convert to another religion. The fact, however, that somebody was born into such conditions stays part of each single person until the very end of their lives.
15
To learn how to live with sometimes more difficult reality is the essential task in everybody‟s life. Once the reality is accepted, new points of view, and thus solutions of a difficult situation based not on the wish of what would be nice to have but rather on the confrontation with the reality of what would be good to do in the situation happening at the very moment, might be discovered.
This again points to the subject of minorities in general. The co-living of various cultures is demanding but one of the most important things which might be done is accepting the reality. The Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel‟s reaction to the Charlie
Hebdo shooting (January 2015) was quoting the ex-president Christian Wulff, who said
Islam is part of Germany. Until then, it was more usual to talk about Islam as about a minority religion, which the rest of Germany would decide about. Accepting that Islam is part of Germany, however, brought a new way of perception of this matter. It enabled the
Muslims to take part in discussing important issues, including topics concerning their living conditions in Germany.
The crucial point might be considered to be the effort by everybody to get to know people who might seem different. These efforts will make it easier to be comfortable with the presence of such people and even though some prejudice might be confirmed
(perhaps because of lack of patience in these efforts of understanding or lack of experience to fully believe that the reasons are truthful), other will be removed and replaced by trust in newly revealed things in common or at least by understanding of the situation they are in thanks to the successfully reached sympathetic feelings. As Sicher puts it, “the Christian must accept him [a Jew] as he is and not as the myth will have him. Even if he does not surmount the logical obstacle between myth and reality” (Sicher 67). In other words Sicher believes that it is essential to look at the Jews with open eyes and make up our own mind about the world around us, not just through the eyes of somebody else who perceived the
16 world subjectively and thus created the myth. Furthermore, as Sicher adds, “people have died from the myth of the Jew” (Sicher 67).
Also Bassanio from The Merchant admits he hasn‟t known any Jews before, for him it is interesting to meet Shylock (Wesker, The Merchant 37). Usually this being unfamiliar with certain facts or cultures causes fear of these things unknown. When one does not know someone or something, they are afraid of things the unknown people do differently.
Being afraid, results in not giving them the chance to explain openly their reasons for the different things they do. This leads to creating stereotypes and talking about something that somebody thinks – not about something they know. That is why the knowledge is so important to challenge the stereotypes. People like what they are familiar with.
Bassanio and Graziano do not seem to care about other people very much
(Wesker, The Merchant 37). To learn how to live with other cultures, it is essential to observe and to be curious about other people, to be inquiring, to be able to challenge previous stereotypes. Empathy is the prerequisite for getting closer to other cultures. Bassanio and
Graziano, though, talk just about themselves and their points of view and ignore the others. The Jews present an obstacle in their narrow-minded way of thinking.
17
2. The Merchant (of Venice?): Two Plays about Shylock
While in the first chapter The Merchant by Wesker was introduced, this chapter puts Wesker‟s play next to Shakespeare‟s MV. The main differences are pointed out and as the anti-Semitism in MV is said to be the reason for Wesker‟s reaction by writing The
Merchant, the debate over the degree of anti-Semitism in MV follows.
2.1. The Main Differences
As mentioned in 1.2 Wesker decided to change the reasons for the bond between
Antonio and Shylock. The major change, thus, is the friendship between Shylock and
Antonio. Wesker wanted to show the possibilities of friendship across cultural differences and the general attempt was to eliminate the bad effect MV caused on his race (Parlak
127).
Shakespeare‟s Shylock is a very complex character. Not only is he a victim of society (“his business activities are much more restrained” (MV 181), he is imprisoned and only allowed to meet his ghetto (MV 181)), and thus it is expected that the audience will feel pity for him. At the same time, however, he is a hypocrite and a mentally unstable person. The process of how and why Shylock became this kind of person is emphasized more in Wesker‟s The Merchant. It is more concerned with the Jews, there are more Jewish characters, and it introduces much deeper insight into the background of why Jews were victims. As quoted in Leeming, “the play has „debts to history and social structures that
Shakespeare never found‟” (Leeming 126). After reading Wesker‟s The Merchant it makes one reflect on the difficult situation Shylock is in. It must be very difficult to be closed just in the Ghetto and have restricted rights. This feeling makes one more sympathetic with the
Jewish community.
It is suggested that Jessica in Shakespeare‟s version is depicted just as a rough draft, while in Wesker Jessica‟s character is dealt with in much more precise detail
18
(Lindemann 125). Nevertheless, in Shakespeare the audience is also made to ponder what
Jessica‟s state of mind is. They can guess she is probably really missing her father and having some hard times after she runs away from home. It must be difficult for her to adapt to new religion, to the new man, new culture. She might realize it is not that easy as she thought it would be at the beginning. As Jessica is ignored (Portia does not address her almost at all, not even when Jessica talks to Portia), it might seem that Jessica is the sad result of being born as the minority (MV 148).
The difference between Shakespeare‟s point of view in the court scene and
Wesker‟s one is, as Lindemann puts it, described in Shakespeare as an individual Shylock‟s problem whereas Wesker considers the Jewish question as a problem of minorities. In
Shakespeare Shylock is the prosecutor first but then he becomes the accused, in contrast to
Wesker‟s Shylock, who remains in the role of the prosecutor till the end as the memories of the Holocaust would not allow any other conception of Shylock (Lindemann 129). That is why in Wesker the problem of the pound of flesh remains in the background. The emphasis is laid on Jews as the scapegoats in Shylock‟s speech. And as mentioned in the first chapter the “Hath not a Jew eyes” speech is perceived by Wesker as if the self-evident human rights of Jews were questioned (Lindemann 129). For this reason Wesker‟s Shylock reacts to Lorenzo, who is saying this speech, with: “My humanity is my right, not your bestowed and gracious privilege” (Wesker, The Merchant 77).
2.2. Anti-Semitism in The Merchant of Venice
Wesker decided to react to Shakespeare‟s play with his own version that should be perceived as the answer to Shakespeare‟s MV. The main reason for feeling the necessity to change the story written by Shakespeare was the anti-Semitic feelings that this play evoked in Wesker. The question whether this play is or is not anti-Semitic still has not been answered with a satisfying and definite answer. The literary critics try to look at this subject from various points of view. Some of them say very directly, “It is [an anti-Semitic play] . . .
19
It‟s still quite controversial whenever this is . . . played, it still raises . . . the same debates about whether this is the anti-Jewish play or not” (Lex 30:06-30:47). In England there was even a boycott organized by Jewish girls who were complaining of showing of the play
(Lex 30:49).
It is unarguable that Shakespeare works with stereotypes. Shylock is the stereotypical Jew. He lends money, is interested in trade. He is a villain. All these attributes were rooted in the minds of Shakespeare‟s contemporaries. People were familiar with the context and understood what Shakespeare described (Lex 24:35).
Shakespeare is drawing on prejudice of what people know, “the faith that people don‟t like Jews very much” (Lex 26:00). People know that and so they understand that.
Over the course of past centuries there were “different ways that Shylock has been portrayed” (Lex 27:21). This is “shifted with the way society understands Jewish people”
(Lex 27:33). It is the power of the playwright to adapt the play depending on the times he lives in and, therefore, the play belongs to the time (Lex 27:40). How anti-Semitism works in Shakespeare depends thus on the society who is reading it. That is why, in Nazi
Germany Shylock was depicted as a baby-eating monster Jew (Lex 28:09-29:48).
Nevertheless, considering only the text, a few aspects of the degree of anti-
Semitism might be observed. The text consists of passages which document the negative approach towards Jews, as well as the very believable reaction by someone not accepted by the majority and thus getting to the edge of the society. Shylock is introduced only at the very moment of getting mad because of that situation. (It is well known that Shakespeare‟s characters are very often desperate people who get mad because of the situation they get into.)
It is Shakespeare‟s style of writing to open a new story or a dialogue with a conversation, which is already in the middle, he starts writing only then when the conversation is getting more interesting and is reaching its core. The play, too, might be
20 perceived as starting only with such a part of Shylock‟s life which might be found more interesting for the audience. The audience does not get the chance to be part of Shylock‟s life when everything was beginning. They do not happen to see Shylock behaving with a bigger trust towards people around him perhaps. They miss the time when Shylock was younger and maybe more vital and excited about life. At the same time, for the audience it is obvious from the play that Shylock‟s behaviour was not always the same. On contrary,
Shylock ran out of patience, which he probably used to have to a greater degree.
Shakespeare‟s story is a story about a man of his time, his feelings and his behaviour. It is a description of a man, who was not accepted by the majority. The main theme of MV might be considered to be the dealing with the difficulties and thus extreme consequences of a man who feels being the minority.
It is Portia in Shakespeare‟s MV who, as the first person, is taking Shylock seriously. She trusts him and at least for a little moment Shylock feels not alone, not like a minority. Portia is not reducing Shylock (MV 126).
Also, Shylock‟s punishment is so humiliating that the audience cannot be unsympathetic towards him. Portia as the first one breaks the stereotypical perception of
Shylock. He is not anymore just a Jew and he becomes a human being worth real discussion. Portia listens to Shylock and gives him room to talk. It is the moment when the audience has the chance to feel sympathy with Shylock too. And for this reason the punishment comes at the moment when the audience might have understood how difficult it must have been for this person so humiliated by the stereotypical way of thinking. At this point it gets hard to feel relief from the punishment. Shylock is not a villain as he might have been perceived at the beginning. He is now the sad result of being born as a minority.
And as this is the very last thing that the audience finds out about Shylock, this makes him a victim (MV 137) not a villain. Being a victim is the passive role of somebody not able to change their harsh fate caused by the difficult situation that the society drove them into. It
21 evokes compassion, unlike a villain, the active role responsible for their fate that is usually perceived with resistance and hatred towards the person.
As paraphrased in Drew, “Shakespeare acted as a kind of double agent by providing a cartoon Jew for the anti-Semitic mob, while sneaking into his text a subversive thread of critique – an anti-anti-Semitism for the educated viewer to decipher” (54). In other words Shakespeare pleased those who do not think about humanism that much as well as those who can read between the lines.
Shakespeare uses compassion first but to defuse tensions humour usually follows.
He is taking care of a fine balance of seriousness and a relaxed atmosphere. On account of this as Drew puts it, “comic scenes turn nasty, courtroom dramas are interrupted with clowning outbursts and heroes and villains are often reversible” (56). If it was not for such balance it might become “a simplified morality tale” (Drew 56), which was criticised in
Michael‟s Radford film version of MV due to the fact that the “dramatic scenes are kept earnestly „serious‟, if not tragic, and comic scenes are purged of their dark undercurrents . .
.” (Drew 56).
Shakespeare will not tell his audience what they should conclude about each of the issues. “Instead, he lays out the conflicting viewpoints and invites you to make up your own mind” (MV 176). Therefore, it is not really possible to judge the degree of
Shakespeare‟s intended anti-Semitism.
2.3. Stereotyping
Notwithstanding previously mentioned conclusion, it is unarguable that
Shakespeare uses stereotypes, which Wesker is trying to change as well. Whenever people get divided into Christians and Jews, Blacks and Whites, good ones and bad ones,
Christians and Muslims, it causes that the world is perceived in a simplified way and thus the individuality of a human being gets reduced. Nevertheless, the attempts at the ideal way of considering of the world might result in talking about people only in general terms.
22
There would be no division between men and women possible, it would not be proper to attribute any typical features to any religion or culture. Since each such generalisation would reduce the individuals of each group of people. It is almost improbable that writing about someone in particular who might have the same characteristic features as oneself would not lead to identification. The possibility of identification is the key feature in most works of literature. However, even though there is no direct aim of allowing the readers or audience to identify with the characters, it is very well possible that the character is experiencing a situation which could remind the readers of something that they might project onto their lives and the intention notwithstanding, they would identify with whomever they would understand.
It is very tricky when somebody tries to identify with Shylock because he is a Jew.
At the same time Shylock‟s behaviour is depicted as of somebody mad. He got into a situation that drove him into suggesting the insane bond.
The aim is not to stop writing so that nobody gets offended due to identification with a wrong character. Shakespeare certainly did not have any idea that his MV would be misused by the Nazis. It is always dependent on the director how they use and adapt the original. The story of MV written by Shakespeare could be played without dividing the characters into Jews and Christians not to offend anybody. At the same time, nevertheless, the main theme, which might be seen in the inner conflict of a man living as a minority and trying to fight against unjust behaviour of the majority, would disappear.
Shylock thinks everything is against him, he does not have anything, he is mad:
TUBAL. Yes, other men have ill luck too. Antonio as I heard in Genoa –
SHYLOCK. What, what, what? Ill luck, ill luck?
TUBAL. – hath an argosy cast away coming from Tripolis.
SHYLOCK. I thank God, I thank God. Is it true, is it true?
......
23
SHYLOCK. I thank thee, good Tubal: good new, good news! Ha, ha, heard in
Genoa! (MV 79)
This reaction seems as if he was happy that he is not the only person in the world with ill luck or in general with something. His friend is empathic, he knows what he needs to hear.
The thing that is making him mad is not ill luck in particular but rather the fact he is alone mentally because of his minority feelings, which as it appears to Shylock nobody shares with him, but also physically, as everybody has left him. He feels like the greatest social outcast – unloved and misunderstood.
However, Shylock is a Jew, and mixing up three expressions: Jew as the whole nation, Jew as the stereotypical Renaissance character and Jew as a particular person – namely Shylock, might bring some serious confusions when talking about the play considering the degree of anti-Semitism.
The characteristics of Shylock in MV are intolerance, hatred, inability to forgive
(MV 21), he is a self-pitying (MV 25) father who makes his daughter unhappy (MV 45).
He is depicted as a mean person and a paranoid miser (MV 51). “Some directors cut line
18 [For I did dream of money bags tonight (MV 51),] because they feel it presents Shylock as a stereotype” (MV 50). Shylock has both, his own story as well as the stereotypical characteristics of a Jew. Depending on how much room for Shylock there would be to explain why he does what he does or why he behaves the way he behaves. In case the author wants to introduce a character with stereotypical behaviour such as a mean Jew or silly clown, he would not spend time explaining such an attribute. In contrast to a piece of writing that would rather deal with a study of a Jew or a clown. A work like that would make it possible to understand a personality like for instance Shylock and would make it clear that maybe there was someone like Shylock but certainly that is not one universal characteristics of all Jews. For the stereotypical way of narrating reduces the individual human beings who are of the same kind as the stereotyped one.
24
By a Jew as the stereotypical Renaissance character is meant the following. It might seem that the word Jew used for the character of Shylock is used just like another name or denotation of a certain type of characters such as a king, a clown or a beggar. In
Shakespeare‟s time it was more usual to work with the stereotypes. And so, it is very difficult nowadays to take such a word seriously that is used just to call one of the typical
Renaissance characters as they were perceived at that time by the society in the context of our times. Just like it is impossible to imagine that a story including a king can stand for someone whom we nowadays call the president. That is why it should be carefully considered what characters we project onto people we know today.
The way Shakespeare uses the stereotype of a Jew is, nevertheless, rather the mirror of what society thinks than his attempt to mock the nations (MV 16). According to
Drew, “in the historical chasm that separates us from Shakespeare, there is a distinction between what could have been . . . played for laughs, and the bitter aftertaste which those same comic scenes and characters produce in us today” (53). The director of a contemporary production has two options how to present Shakespeare‟s play. It is possible to introduce MV as an updated production, which should directly talk to people.
Alternatively, MV might be considered as a unique play of Shakespearean times, which would be as such presented to the audience.
Discussing in an interview with Barry Edelstein, Professor James Shapiro and
Rabbi Steven Weil, Weil states:
If the perception of a Christian European was of what a typical Christian
European would see a Jew at that time in history, Shylock doesn‟t seem to be
that far afield . . . It‟s not a statement whether Shakespeare was an anti-Semite
or not an anti-Semite, it‟s a statement about . . . what was the milieu that he
was functioning from. (Museum Jewish Heritage 2:20)
25
Weil‟s point is that Shakespeare‟s Shylock is the product of his time. In a museum there are some pictures displayed which certainly nobody would paint nowadays but they are perceived as the remembrance of history which everybody is part of. On the other hand when creating a production which would be presented just as a remembrance of history, it should also consider the “generic . . . and . . . historical division between the early modern and modern definitions of what can and cannot be laughed at,” (Drew 53) and as such should not be expected to call for the same reactions of the audience as in the times when it was written.
Coming back to the initial assumption that Shylock, the stereotypical Renaissance character and Jews as the whole nation should not be mixed up, it is essential to make a clear distinction between an individual reaction of somebody living as a minority (Shylock‟s bond) and between what might be perceived as a historical memory, the typical product of
Shakespearean time (the Jewish stereotypes). Last but not least it is necessary to realize that even though Jews as a nation are still present in society, they are not talked about when talking about Jews from sixteenth century Venice. In case those three viewpoints get muddled up, it might bring up false prejudices – therefore, saying Shylock is the typical Jew would be a very wrong conclusion.
For this reason, the character of Shylock as the man who got mad due to mistreatment and lack of comprehension by the majority society provides a story about a minority character and his feelings, which sometimes everybody might experience. If presented like this, the identification with Shylock might be possible.
26
3. Shylock, the Jew: Other Examples of Shylock
In spite of the conclusion in the previous chapter, Wesker‟s reason for
reacting to Shakespeare‟s MV is the way Shylock‟s character in MV is written. For him
Shylock by Shakespeare might be the means of spreading hatred of Jews.
Whether this feeling is shared by everybody watching the play would need
some further exploration, however not from the literary point of view. It would be very
interesting to find out how the perception, both conscious and unconscious, of various
people would be and based on such observation offer a study which would prove or
call Wesker‟s impression of the impact of the MV on the audience as rare.
This thesis, however, is a literary analysis and that is why rather than judging
Wesker‟s statement and agreeing or disagreeing about the impact of the play an analysis of
Wesker‟s play compared to Shakespeare‟s MV and other versions of this play is made.
Wesker‟s drama is therefore considered as one of many possibilities working with the same topic as Shakespeare‟s MV. As such the play consists of sometimes more and sometimes less advantageous solutions in comparison to Shakespeare‟s version. Other than
Wesker‟s way of coping with the Jewish topic and different approaches of dramatists to this theme are presented and compared in this chapter.
3.1. Shylock by Mark Leiren-Young
Mark Leiren-Young, a Canadian playwright, decided to write an eighty-minute long monologue which would be said by an actor playing Shylock, after he himself tried what it felt like be an actor of Shylock. Leiren-Young, just like Wesker, experienced hatred feelings but unlike Wesker this hatred was felt towards Antonio and Portia and everybody else who harmed Shylock in some way (Leiren-Young n. pag.).
Leiren-Young created a Jewish character of an actor of Shylock – Jon Davies – who is criticised for his rather anti-Semitic interpretation of Shylock. Jon uses a “talk-back”
27 session, which follows the final show in a run of MV. Questions such as where expression ends and censorship begins or “who decides whether something is art or just plain offensive” are raised (Kopfinger n. pag.). Other big topics like history, political correctness and racism are discussed too.
As Patrick Stewart states, “Mark Leiren-Young's play is very strong and an important contribution to the vexed and vexing question of the alleged anti-Semitism of
The Merchant of Venice” (“Shylock by Mark Leiren-Young, featuring M. Brady McKellar” n. pag.). The response to Shylock as one of the layers of him is emphasized (Buntin n. pag.). And Buntin adds, this play is “less about the character of Shylock than it is about censorship” (n. pag.). Censorship in art could be considered the key topic. Most of the artists would agree on no censorship at all, “The fact that Shylock is still with us doesn't speak to anti-semitism but to its opposite -- the need to understand” (Woodend n. pag.).
Other ideas of this play are reflecting on the theatre itself, as an example could be a statement made by Jon that “theatre is supposed to provoke discussion,” (Kopfinger n. pag.) as a reaction to one of the criticisms “that he is a „self-hating Jew‟” (Buntin n. pag.).
As a result, critical reception was very positive. In general the fact that Leiren-
Young is dealing with the controversy around anti-Semitism directly is applauded the most
(Kopfinger n. pag.). He is “making „it clear what he thinks about issues surrounding The
Merchant of Venice,‟ while presenting „the controversy about its performance and censorship fully and fairly‟ (qtd. in Buntin n. pag.). The play was also called “dangerous, daring and provocative” by Jo Ledingham of The Vancouver Courier (Charlesbois n. pag.).
3.2. Yasser by Abdelkader Benali
Similarly, the play called Yasser introduces a Palestinian actor Yasser Mansour, who is preparing for a role of Shylock. This time the actor starts with a more practical issue, namely the theft of all his props and costume, especially Shylock‟s fake nose. At the same time, however, acting as such is one of the topics, as well as identity and the
28
Palestinian conflict. Arafat is used as “an iconic symbol of the Palestinian struggle”
(Nathan n. pag.) and Yasser “argues a case for co-existence of Palestinians and Jews” (Van der Sluijs n. pag.). The play takes place in the theatre‟s changing room of Harrogate Theatre and even though Yasser is a monologue, the play of mirrors makes it possible to introduce another character, Lucy, who plays Portia in the production of MV and with whom Yasser is in love. Apart from that Lucy just as Portia forces Yasser into Christianity (Apolloni n. pag.).
Except for his love for Lucy the audience finds out about Yasser‟s childhood in
Palestine, including the memories of his father, “who yearned to be an actor but died on an
Israeli building site” (Nathan n. pag.), of his mother, who was not very happy about her son “wanting to play a Jew” (Nathan n. pag.) or about his doubts whether “a Palestinian should be playing a Jew” (Bulman n. pag.). This results in “conflicts of loyalty – to his mother, to his father, to his people and to his art” (Nathan n. pag.), which Yasser concludes with a statement that “the Arab understands Shylock better than anyone”
(Armitstead n. pag.). Throughout the whole show Yasser embodies “twenty-two different characters” (Armitstead n. pag.).
Other questions that are discussed are the discrimination, prejudices and “the insight into emancipation that performing the role of Shylock have given him” (“Yasser” n. pag.). And as Apolloni sums up:
. . . the pound of flesh becomes symbolic of the blood spilt in the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict; and Yasser‟s adult life in the West increasingly reflects a
sense of Shylock‟s persecution. (qtd. in Apolloni n. pag.)
The production won van der Viesprijs in the Netherlands for Best New Writing in
2002 (“Yasser by Abdelkader Benali” n. pag.) and generally, the criticism was rather positive praising the production especially for William el-Gardi‟s energetic performance (a
British-based Sudanese-Egyptian actor) and a brilliant script dealing with quite a difficult
29 subject matter. With words “humorous and intelligent” Michael Bulman as one of many others recommends this show (n. pag.) as well as Alexandra Hilliard, who talks about a thought-provoking piece (n. pag.).
Nevertheless, some critical voices like McMillan‟s criticism of elements of the story that seem to conflict and of the flat quality of the text appear likewise (n. pag.). In addition, Tony Adler is not quite happy with the speed. He would prefer a slower speed to have the chance to “savor the poetic, paradoxical text by Moroccan-Dutch writer
Abdelkader Benali” (n. pag.).
To sum up this production is another example of how it is possible to work with
Shakespeare‟s text nowadays using it in the contemporary context. Literature is here used to get “to the heart of cross-cultural conflict” (Apolloni n. pag.) and as Apolloni notes, “a new layer to the continued process of understanding, adapting, and portraying
Shakespeare” (n. pag.) was added. Compared to Wesker‟s The Merchant, also in Yasser is dealt with the problem of minorities and the main character Yasser just like Shakespeare‟s
Shylock experiences what it means to be an outcast.
3.3. Other references to MV
Another example of using MV for today‟s purposes might be The Maori Merchant of Venice. It is a film in Maori language with English subtitles. One of the main reasons for this translation was to revive Maori language. Even though the film does not change the environment into Maoridom, “there are analogies” (“The Maori Merchant of Venice. The
Production.” n. pag.).
The play In the Lion’s Den by the Austrian playwright Felix Mitterer introduces a completely different way of dealing with the MV matter. It is one of the examples of how the play MV is worked with within other dramatic pieces.
In the play In the Lion’s Den (Mitterer 257-309) Shakespeare‟s MV is embedded in the main story of a Jewish actor Arthur Kirsch, who is fired because of his too sympathetic
30 way of acting Shylock in 1933. Shylock‟s “Hath not a Jew eyes” speech forms a frame for the whole production. However, the speech at the beginning is interrupted by the booing audience and Arthur has to leave his beloved theatre. He flees with his two children from the Berlin theatre to Austria, while his career preferring wife stays in the theatre. In
Austrian mountains Arthur meets Benedikt Höllrigl, a typical Tyrolean farmer, and borrows his identity. As Tyrolean Benedikt Höllrigl, symbol of the perfect Aryen, Arthur returns to the “lion‟s den” – his former theatre full of Nazis – and through a complete change of his image and accent he tries to persuade everybody including his wife of his love for theatre as a perfect Aryen. Arthur gets a role of William Tell and everybody is amazed by his “natural” talent and praises him for a wonderful performance of a genuine
German. In the end the Gestapo finds out about Arthur pretending to be Benedikt.
Nevertheless, the real Benedikt comes just in time to confuse the Gestapo and persuade them of their “wrong” information. In spite of this little victory Arthur does not feel safe anymore and feels that his task in the theatre was fulfilled. With the final “Hath not a Jew eyes” speech he expresses the hopelessness of his situation, irrespective of a few light moments which would help him experience the life of the majority.
Dealing with racism in Leiren-Young‟s Shylock, introducing feelings of being an outcast in Benali‟s Yasser as well as Shylock‟s “Hath not a Jew eyes” speech framing the play In the Lion’s Den about a Jewish actor in the Second World War bring evidence that the character of Shylock really evokes discussions concerning the sad fate of people oppressed by society.
31
Conclusion
The aim of the thesis was to introduce the theme of minorities in both Wesker‟s and Shakespeare‟s plays about Shylock. The thesis deals with this topic through considering what Shakespeare wrote, what Wesker‟s response to Shakespeare was and through a short insight into the way other playwrights work with Shakespeare‟s MV.
Assuming that it is essential to introduce a sympathetic Shylock for the reason that he is a symbol of minorities in general, Wesker succeeded in creating one. As he felt the necessity of eliminating the bad effect MV caused on his race through introducing a
Jew to be hated, he resolved to write an answer to Shakespeare‟s play about Shylock.
Creating a new reason for the bond between Antonio and Shylock Wesker emphasizes the possibility of friendship across cultural differences. Moreover, he is trying to create Shylock who is not only friends with a Christian but who has also other friends and his own conversations. Wesker brings a character worth being understood as the audience gets the chance to listen to his sorrows or to his private story with his daughter
Jessica. They are witnesses of other people talking about Shylock from various points of view, which creates a character with both positive and negative characteristic features. He is not just a caricature presented from one point of view. The character of Shylock is complex and that brings a great room for the audience to understand his position as a Jew.
However, after analysing Wesker‟s The Merchant a closer examination of MV was added, which dealt with another perspective on how Shakespeare‟s Shylock could be presented to be perceived as a sympathetic character, too. The ignorance of Jessica as well as hostility towards Shylock call for sympathetic feelings even in Shakespeare‟s MV.
Except for that a general way of portraying Shylock does not exist. It is always dependant on what society thinks. The same story by Shakespeare may introduce Shylock as a victim as well as a villain. For this reason it is important, however, to be aware of what the production expects from their audience. The difference in what was presented as funny
32 in Shakespeare‟s time and what is presented as funny after Holocaust must be carefully considered. On the other hand to censor the play would mean as much as to censor any other artistic pieces. Thus, it is crucial to present the play as a play from the sixteenth century and keep a distance between what is appropriate to update into the present time and use in the performance as if it was happening nowadays and what must be presented just as a historical memory, unacceptable in today‟s society.
As a result, distinguishing between perceiving the word Jew as the whole nation, the word used as the stereotypical Renaissance character and Jew as a particular person –
Shylock is another aspect that might help the audience not to identify with somebody whose interpretation they might find offending. Shylock becomes insane, he is a Jew, thus a minority, he is a lonely person, misunderstood and oppressed by society. To identify with
Shylock because at least one of these attributes (e.g. a Jew) together with not agreeing with another attribute of the character (e.g. insanity) might cause that the character of Shylock would be perceived as offensive.
The line between what categories are allowed to be distinguished (men and women for example) and what categories could become offending if distinguished insensitively (dividing people into Blacks and Whites) is quite thin. Nonetheless, when writing already about two such categories, it is essential to avoid stereotyping and thus creating prejudice. The main weapon in fighting against prejudice is knowledge. As ignorance results in fear of the unknown and thus mistreatment, curiosity and knowledge is an important theme also in Wesker‟s The Merchant.
Accepting reality is not only discussed explicitly when talking about Shylock‟s incapability to adapt to the conditions he lives in or when criticising Bassanio‟s and
Graziano‟s narrow-minded way of thinking about Jews. It is also practically used in the form of bringing conversations about daily life in the Jewish Ghetto, sad stories about other Jews and some historical facts on the stage.
33
And even though it might seem that only Wesker‟s Shylock narrates about the harsh life of one foreigner, Shakespeare as a double agent created maybe a real cartoon Jew as a mirror of what society thinks, however, he did not forget to insert a subversive thread of critique for the educated viewer, too. Shakespeare does not say everything, his Shylock is even introduced only in the state of madness. Shylock does not have much room to defend himself, only when Portia gets to talk to him, listens to him and gives him room to talk.
Humour and tension are masterly combined not to perform just a simplified morality tale, but by putting conflicting viewpoints together it is left up to the audience to make up their own mind.
As the other dramatic pieces about Shylock evoke discussions about minorities in general, it is unarguable that minorities are the binding element of anybody writing about
Shylock. Shylock is the symbol of a person who is a minority. Provided that each person might sometimes experience a situation when they would feel as a minority, the identification with Shylock could be possible every time when the production makes it possible to differentiate between Shylock as a symbol of minorities and Shylock as the historical memory of what society thought of Jews in the sixteenth century.
34
Works Cited and Consulted
Primary Sources
Shakespeare, William, Jonathan Morris, and Robert Smith. The Merchant of Venice. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print.
Wesker, Arnold. The Merchant with Commentary and Notes. London: Methuen, 1983. Print.
Secondary Sources
Adler, Tony. “Tony Adler, Chicago Reader 11/5/08.” Chopin Theatre. 11 May 2008. Web.
15 Apr. 2015.
Apolloni, Jessica. “Shylock Meets Palestine: Rethinking Shakespeare in Abdelkader
Benali‟s Yasser.” Project Muse. Jun. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.
e_bulletin/v031/31.2.apolloni.pdf>. Armitstead, Chad. “A review by Chad Armitstead for EXTRA! EXTRA!” Extra! Extra! Web. 15 Apr. 2015. Biravská, Zuzana. “Tirol in Tschechien. Zur Aufführungsproblematik von Felix Mitterers In der Löwengrube.” BA Thesis. Masarykova univerzita, Brno, 2012. Print. Bulman, Michael. “Yasser Reviews.” Theatre Tours International. 08 Aug. 2008. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. Buntin, Mat. “Shylock.” Canadian Adaptations of Shakespeare Project. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. m>. Charlesbois, Gaetan, Joan Watterson, and Joel Greenberg. “Shylock.” Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia. 18 May 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. 35 Drew, Daniel. “William Shakespeare‟s The Merchant of Venice.” Film Quarterly. 60.1 (2006): 52-6. JSTOR. Web. 29 Nov. 2014. Foulkes, Richard. “The Staging of the Trial Scene in Irving‟s „The Merchant of Venice‟.” Educational Theatre Journal. 28.3 (1976): 312-7. JSTOR. Web. 15 Feb. 2015. Halperin, Mark. “Teaching The Merchant of Venice.” The English Journal 86.5. (1997): 12. JSTOR. Web. 29 Nov. 2014. Herman, Judi. “Shylock Revisited – Playwrights Julia Pascal and Arnold Wesker and Actor Henry Goodman Talk to Judi Herman.” All About Jewish Theatre. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. theatre.com/visitor/article_display.aspx?articleID=2546>. Hilliard, Alexandra. “Yasser Reviews.” Theatre Tours International. 09 Aug. 2007. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. Kopfinger, Stephen. “Shylock has his day on stage at Stahr.” LancasterOnline. 11 Sep. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. stage-at-stahr/article_b4e5d1d0-f6f8-5414-9c17- 2a029b409a47.html?mode=jqm>. Kroh, Sabine. “The Merchant” – A Historical Drama? Arnold Wesker’s Adaptation of William Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”. Munich: Grin Publishing GmbH, 2001. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. historical-drama-arnold-wesker-s-adaptation-of-william>. Leeming, Glenda. Wesker the Playwright. London: Methuen, 1983. Print. 36 Lefkowitz, David. “Satirical Shylock Opens Feb. 25 at PA‟s Walnut.” Playbill Club. 25 Feb. 1998. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. shylock-opens-feb.-25-at-pas-walnut-73645>. Leiren-Young, Mark. “Patrick Stewart‟s Warning About Shylock.” Mark Leiren-Young. 30 Apr. 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2015 5621>. Lex, Matua. “Anti-Semitism in History – Merchant of Venice.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 8 Apr. 2015. Lindemann, Klaus, and Valeska Lindemann. Arnold Wesker. München: Fink, 1985. Print. Mabillard, Amanda. “Shakespeare's Sources for The Merchant of Venice.” Shakespeare Online. Web. 30 Mar. 2015. online.com/sources/merchantsources.html>. Marsden, Jean I. The Appropriation of Shakespeare: Post-Renaissance Reconstructions of the Works and the Myth. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991. Print. McMillan, Joyce. “Yasser.” Joyce McMillan – Online. 16 Aug. 2008. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. Mitterer, Felix, Jiří Záviš, Helena Spurná, Kateřina Diváková. V jámě lvové: Program k 623. Premiéře a šesté inscenaci sezony 2006 / 2007. Brno: Městské divadlo Brno, 2006. Print. Museum Jewish Heritage. “Shylock Shakespeare, and the Jews: Anti-Semitism on the Merchant of Venice.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 13 Apr. 2011. Web. 9 Apr. 2015. Nathan, John. “Shylock the Middle-East peacemaker.” The Jewish Chronicle Online. 15 Oct. 2009. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. reviews/20981/review-yasser>. 37 Parlak, Erdinç. “Arnold Wesker‟s The Merchant: Re-reading of Shakespeare‟s The Merchant of Venice.” Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 33 (2014): 124-9. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. Shakespeare, William. Kupec benátský. Praha: Academia, 2007. Print. Shakespeare, William, Pavel Drábek, Jiří Josek, Markéta Polochová, Pavel Trenský, Jiří Záviš. Benátský kupec: Program k 713. Premiéře a osmé inscenaci v sezoně 2013 / 2014. Brno: Městské divadlo Brno, 2014. Print. “Shylock by Mark Leiren-Young, featuring M. Brady McKellar.” Wanderlusttheatre co. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. Sicher, Efraim. “The Jewing of Shylock: Wesker‟s „The Merchant‟.” Modern Language Studies 21.2 (1991): 57-69. JSTOR. Web. 2 Nov. 2014. “The Maori Merchant of Venice. The Production.” The Maori Merchant of Venice. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. Van der Sluijs, Teunkie. “An Open Letter to Christopher Piatt from the Director of YASSER.” Chopin Theatre. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. Wellwarth, George E. “Arnold Wesker „Awake and Sing‟ in Whitechapel.” The Theatre of Protest and Paradox: Developments in the Avant-Garde Drama. London: Macgibbon & Kee, 1965. 234-43. Print. Wesker, Arnold. As Much as I Dare: An Autobiography (1932-1959). London: Century, 1994. Print. Wesker, Arnold. The Birth of Shylock and the Death of Zero Mostel: The Diary of a Play 1973 to 1980. London: Quartet Books, 1997. Print. 38 Wesker, Arnold. The Journalists; The Wedding Feast; Shylock. London: Penguin, 1990. Print. Wilson, Robert J. "Censorship, Anti-Semitism, and „The Merchant of Venice‟." The English Journal 86.2 (1997): 43-5. JSTOR. Web. 29 Nov. 2014. Woodend, Dorothy. “Sympathy for Shylock.” The Tyee. 14 Jan. 2005. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. “Yasser.” World Heritage Encyclopedia. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. . “Yasser by Abdelkader Benali.” Theatre Tours International. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. 39 Summary The thesis is dealing with the issue of minorities in Wesker‟s The Merchant and Shakespeare‟s The Merchant of Venice (MV). Wesker‟s The Merchant is Wesker‟s answer to Shakespeare as a reaction to anti-Semitism in MV. The main aim is to analyse Wesker‟s The Merchant and to compare the main differences between these two plays about Shylock. A debate over alleged anti-Semitism and Jewish stereotypes in MV follows supported by the opinions of the scholars. Other plays such as Shylock by Mark Leiren-Young, Yasser by Abdelkader Benali, Maori translation The Maori Merchant of Venice or Felix Mitterer‟s reference to Shylock in the play In the Lion’s Den, are introduced in the very last part of the thesis to sketch in the literary context of dealing with this topic. 40 Résumé Tato práce se zabývá problematikou menšin ve hrách The Merchant1 dramatika Arnolda Weskera a Kupce benátského Williama Shakespeara. Hra The Merchant je Weskerovou odpovědí na Kupce benátského jako reakce na antisemitismus ve hře obsažený. Hlavním záměrem této práce je nabídnout analýzu Weskerovy hry The Merchant a srovnat zásadní změny se Shakespearovou verzí o Shylockovi. Následuje debata o údajném antisemitismu a židovských stereotypech v Kupci benátském podložená názory různých akademiků, kteří se tímto tématem rovněž zabývají. Weskerův The Merchant je nakonec zasazen do kontextu současného literárního pole, a je proto zmíněno několik dalších her, které postavu Shylocka dramaticky zpracovávají jako například hra Shylock dramatika Marka Leiren-Younga, Abdelkader Benaliho hra Yasser, maorský překlad Kupce benátského s názvem The Maori Merchant of Venice či odkaz rakouského dramatika Felixe Mitterera k Shylockovi ve hře V jámě lvové (In the Lion’s Den). 1 Kupec (hra nemá český oficiální překlad) 41