Review of 'Shylock' from 'Jewish Post and Opinion' weekly (1/10/96).
by Jack M. Kamen

Review of Shylock: A Legend & Its Legacy by John Gross

There is not a proper name that  does not evoke emotion. It may be bland (Jane,
as in 'plain Jane'),    to loathing and disgust (Adolf, as in Adolf XXXXXX).
Hearing 'Shylock' raises a spectre that is more than ethereal. It is near
palpable. To a Jew it is a name that is ever linked  to that stereotype that
anti-Jews invoke in their hatreds. When not used in the context of discussion
of the word itself, the word is venomous . To anathematize a Jew  one need do
no more than speak "Shylock". This book does not directly ask or answer the
always asked question re: The Merchant of Venice. Is it 'anti-Semitic' as many
Jews and especially Jewish critics and commentators believe, and if so, did
Shakespeare intend it to be so? Instead, the  London theatre critic John Gross,
gives us the information and insights to form opinions and re-form biases.
Shylock is not  the merchant of the title. That appelation falls to Antonio,
the (?anti)hero of this  "Romantic Comedy". (Yes, it was originally presented
to the public as such), although its first title page (circa 1600), describes
the play, in part, as "The most excellent historie of the Merchant of Venice,
with the extreame crueltie of Shylocke the Jewe towards the sayd merchant, in
cutting a just pound of his flesh:....." This blurb was probably not penned by
W.S. but, rather, the printer, who was after what all commercialists
seek--sales. Nevertheless,  with that the stage is verily set. First off, was
Shakespeare an anti-Jew?  Hard to say but probably not, or better yet, since
most  judgements are on a comparative basis, not when he's put up against such
as Christopher Marlowe who wrote the 'Jew of Malta'.  Now this play was
downright mean spirited and would please any Nazi skinhead. Shakespeare was not
an original dramatist in the sense that he conceived the plots of his plays.
All of his works, 'cept two or three, are reworks of other playwright(s). So it
was with the 'Merchant'. It was derived from a fourteenth century Italian story
and came already equipped with the  Jew. With his genius, however, he molded
this crude clump of a drama  into a product, a presentation, that would sell
tickets. Since he was a major shareholder in his theatre group it was paramount
that the play  have  wide audience appeal, his audience consisting of all
social classes, from lowly trade apprentices to the high and mighty lords and
ladies. But what did appeal to the early seventeenth century theatregoers? They
certainly had no contact with Jews for they were butchered or expelled from
England three hundred years prior. On the other hand, they sure heard of Jews
through the Church, and myths, and fables, and rumors. Yes, if  he needed
another Iago, an archvillian simply to be part of a plot, why then a Jew would
do nicely. What the original trifle did not have was the name of  this
Jew--Shylock. This was purely Shakespeare's invention. From whence it entered
his brain remains to this day a mystery. He could have chosen Moses, Isaac, or
Irving (all right, maybe not Irving), and all would know this was a Jew.
Instead____ Shylock. From the book: .......the name is not only distinctive, it
feels right. It is the right name for the man who locks up his money and tells
his daughter to lock up his  door.

Having given him his name, he gives him his character. He does this, of course,
through speech and the phrasing of speech. He endows his Jew with linguistic
idiosyncrasies such as using the plural 'moneys', the word 'equal' for exact,
and estimable, for valuable. His language stamps him as an uncommon (at least
to the English) being--as a Jew. Mr. Gross possibly had in mind for this work
to be a vade mecum, a reference souce for serious students. In this he has
succeeded. Through his selective use of  excerpts and his scholar's knowledge
of the Elizabethan idiom, he is able to convey the inner Shylock, a Jew who is
not the devil incarnate. Not a Richard III or Iago who were evil because of the
lust of power and jealousy respectively. No___he , Shylock, is imbued with
understandable passions, passions and feelings that all, but especially Jews,
can empathize with. His soliloquy .........I am a Jew, hath not a Jew eyes?
Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions..? ...If
you prick us do we not bleed...? If you poison us do we not die...? strikes
with a fury that is rare even in Shakespeare. One may easily imagine the
listeners at the Globe becoming silent and  thinking ; "Ya know, he's got a
point there". Mr. Gross' expertise is quite apparent when, as an instance, he
comes to the problem of Jessica, Shylock's only child - a child that runs off
with the gentile Lorenzo.  With great clarity, he probes and dissects the
corpus of the work to discover aspects of behavior of both father and daughter
that aren't initially obvious. An example is Shylock's cry as he learns that
Jessica has left with a significant number of valuables. "O my ducats! O my
daughter", the lament that places the loss of money as being a greater calamity
than loss of daughter.  This agonizing shriek confirms Shylock as the epitome
of the usurous, money-hungry Jew. Easy, very easy to despise . Very
importantly, however, it is pointed out that we never hear that cry from
Shylock directly; It occurs in the account of his distress that Solanio gives
to Solario, an

account which shows every sign of being a highly colored comic turn. Remember,
the play was originally promoted as a 'romantic comedy'! So, too, it seems that
Jessica eloped not to escape her father but because of the 'tediousness' of her
life. (Did she wish to become a liberated woman? Portia,who she would later
meet, was certainly a paradigm of the equal rights woman). This small chapter
alone, in my mind, is worth the cost of the entire volume. A major part of this
book explores the interpretations, by actors and directors, of the Shylock
persona. Although largely concerned with the English speaking stages, there is
enough from other countries to make this section a fully satisfying collation.
The 'Merchant of Venice' was first produced in Israel by the Habima Theatre in
1936. As expected, it aroused more than a modicum of controversy and assumed
some political significance. The second Hebrew production was in 1959; The
actors wore modern dress. Shylock ....was described by one critic as looking
like "a liberal rabbi with a well trimmed beard and a clever and pleasant
expression"...but a.."national pathetic element still remained".  Interesting.

Pre- and post-war German productions are discussed in substantial detail with
the more recent stagings appearing to display considerable angst (? overtones
of repentence). Under ther heading of   'A Citizen of the World', final
explorations of this character are completed. A personal note: A year ago my
wife and I attended a critically acclaimed but audience condemned technomanic
production of the 'Merchant of Venice' by the modernist director, Peter
Sellers. (Chicago's Goodman Theatre). Approximately half the audience did not
return after the intermission. Those that left missed something extraordinary.
They missed the major portion of the performance of Paul Butler as Shylock. His
matter-of-fact speech, his subtle nuances, his defiant deportment intermingled
with an aura of resignation, aroused feelings of pathos and hoplessness that is
most rare in the theatrical world . Mr. Butler's, Shylock's, every word, every
sentence, every gesture, drew from his soul the question "Haven't I had enough?
 Have not the sufferings of  me and my people been sufficient for an eternity?"
And the answers from the stage protagonists were always the same---"No- not
yet. There is more, and there will forever be more to come". Mr. Butler is
black.