[NOTE: If you missed class on Tuesday, please pick up the handout in the box on my door. You'll need it for the questions below and our discussion on Thursday.]
Answer TWO of the following:
Q1: How does Leggatt view the role of Shylock and the
possibility of anti-Semitism in the play? Since he calls this play a “comedy,”
how does he account for Shylock’s presence in such a comedy? What might he mean
when he says, “these readings [sympathy for Shylock] are allowed rather than
compelled by the text” (216)?
Q2: Related to the above, how does he view the role of
Jessica in Act 5? Does she complicate or conform to the demands of comedy? What
might he mean when he suggests that “Her uneasiness also makes a revealing
contrast with Portia’s attitude to her disguise, and suggests there may
be a parallel between the two women” (219)?
Q3: According to Gross’ essay, “From Comical to Tragical,”
when did the tide begin to turn for reading The Merchant of Venice as
more “Shylock’s tragedy” than “Portia’s comedy”? What did it take for audiences
to begin to see the Shylock we know so well today? Does Gross suggest whether
this is actually in the script, or it came from the actors’ imagination?
Q4: Often, other forms of literature can have a profound
affect on how we read historical works, including Shakespeare. What role did
Edgeworth’s novel, Harrington, play in shaping public perception of
Shylock? How could a novel, which has nothing to do with the stage, somehow
change our understanding of a theatrical performance?
Elyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQ3) It seems evident that Shylock became a tragic favorite when he was portrayed by the famous actor Macklin. Macklin put so much work into the creation of this character that he turned Shylock into the "villainous hero" of the play (if that is a possible term to use). Macklin researched Jewish history and inserted that knowledge into his portrayal of Shakespeare's character. The script, plus the actor's effort, made Shylock what he is today.
Q4) Edgeworth's novel cast Jews in a new light. She made Jews look like everybody else: people with souls, feelings, and thoughts that make them unique human beings. This portrayal of Jews made Shylock appear as a more relatable character to audiences. A novel can drastically change theatre. A novel contributes to the world of literary imagination just as a play does; and this contribution enables those literary texts to work together to create new meaning.
Elyse Marquardt
1. It would be understandable if Shakespeare wrote Shylock with the intention of letting him be both comedic and tragic. There's enough salt that, if played as a tragedy Shylock is extremely compelling, and enough circumstance that a comedy would be understandable.
ReplyDelete3. The tide for Shylock turned at the end of his trial. By act 5 it was now Portia's comedy than Shylock's tragedy. The play moved on without him, almost making the tragedy more compelling for the thoughtless aftermath of Shylock's mistake.
Q1: Leggatt says that the play is definitely anti-Semitic. Shylock’s presence (in what Leggatt believes to be a comedy) is purely for some sort of tragic-comic relief. The fact that most people were anti-Semitic means that they could have very well seen Shylock’s struggles as hilarious, while others could have seen it as morally unjust, and wrong.
ReplyDeleteQ3: The tide turned after arguably the most tragic scene in the play, which was Shylock’s scene in court. The audience was immediately subjected to the rawest forms of human emotion. How Shylock was so brutally dehumanized no doubt drew sympathetic reactions from the crowd. The script, as well as the actor’s own experiences and skills were what shaped this scene. It took an actor who was able to channel intense feelings of sorrow, betrayal, and defeat.
Q1: To Leggatt, the anti-Semitic themes portrayed throughout the Merchant of Venice prove Shakespeare, despite his brilliant pen, wasn't above the prejudice of his time. People living in England during the Elizabethan era, when this play was written, were racist against Jews. Therefore, to Leggatt, Shakespeare must be racist himself. By these readings being "allowed rather than compelled," Leggatt is saying that this anti-Semitism demonstrated against Shylock throughout the novel is allowed by the writer himself rather than written in a way that compels the reader or the listener to question moral authority in this light. The problem with this is that in treating Shylock as a comedic character, this play loses its meaning. After that, it is merely fluff and it doesn't have any sort of backbone like the rest of Shakespeare's plays - if we read this as Leggatt suggests us to anyway.
ReplyDeleteQ4) Edgeworth's novel gave identity and soul to Jews. She wasn't the first to give a sympathetic framework to a Jew, but she was the first to give a representative voice to who the Jew's really are within context in Harrington. This was the first time that English readers had seem a shadow of Jews that was't cast from their own light, but from the Jewish lifestyle itself. In turn, this gave new perception for the role of Shylock for future generations. He was no longer an "other" sort of character, outside of a modern understanding and respect. Whether Shakespeare wrote them to be so or not, his folly was no longer something to laugh at, but something to seek blame to for such discrimination. And often that blame pointed towards, and finally grasped the societal system constructing the hatred and mockery of Jews for decades within our culture.
Shelby Pletcher
Q3: The tragedy of Shylock manifests itself most strongly during the final moments of the trial scene. In this scene, we watch as Shylock descends from elation, to despair the trial’s tide turns out of his favor. In my opinion, the truest form of raw emotion is when a person is going through a time of great despair or anger, this is exactly what Shylock is going through during the trial. The earlier portions pf the play feel more like a comedy, partially because of the absurd nature of Shylock’s bond. The audience sort of brushes off the seriousness of the bond until it is actually time to pay the consequences.
ReplyDeleteQ4: Novels, or other works of literature can easily change society’s opinion on various things. The work may change something that was once thought of a fact, or disrupt the literary canon. In this case, Harrington, portrays Jews in a positive light in an attempt to change the cultural standard. A novel may not impact literature or the theatre, but it can change ideas, thoughts, or opinions; it snowballs from there.