Talk:The Merchant of Venice/Archive 2

Anti-semitism?
The intro says that the play is deeply racist, which is something that is of course hotly debated but isn't necessarily declared as fact. For example, whether Shylock is justified in his revenge or not is constantly discussed, what with the contrast of his speech, "Hath not a Jew..." and the Christians' response to his desire for revenge in calling him a "devil." Since there is by no means a consensus on whether or not Shylock is a sympathetic character, shouldn't the article also reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.237.131 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The intro needs some NPOV-ing. While it is true that play is often seen as antisemitic, undeniably a quite important aspect of it, I think that it needs to be mentioned in more balanced way in the intro. I edited accordingly. RespoonsibileSQ (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly mention might be made that the mercilesness of the jew (being of an, at that time, notoriously legalistic culture) is a plot device to illustrate the mercilessness of the law. As empirical observation, "as the emperor sees it" (the law) was, at the time the play was written, being shown by such notables as Isaac Newton to be in error much philosophical discussion of that time involved correction of error. The Christian fundamental of confession of error, repentence of it and mercy for it is fundamental to correction of error. The law, having been demonstrated to be imperfect in that it can be swayed to either side of the case, and merciless on either side cannot be looked to for the mercy of correction. The Christian fundamentals of confession of error (recognition of error), repentence of error (commitment to not repete error), and mercy for error are shown to be ascendendant over law and fundamental to the enlightenment and the modern age as represented by Venice of the time. The illustration of mercy herein lends not to the erroneous belief in the perfection of either law or of man but to the Christian belief in their perfectability. 98.164.120.241 (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Was there plagiarism???
The laughing and crying masks that we are all familiar with, may have their origin as masks worn in Greek Theater, to portray Heraclitus and Democritus. The weeping philosopher makes an appearance in William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice,which may suggest that Shakespeare's literary theme had a Greek origin.

The literary theme of the Merchant of Venice has a character, Heraclitus, from 580 BC., more than 2000 years before Shakespeare. This raises the question of whether the theme had been handed down by Poets (writers) and then theatrical troupes, to Shakespeare's era. First there is the reality, then there is the writing of it, then if the reality and the writing are good enough, there is the dramatic presentation of it. Clearly it may have been an ancient Greek Classic before Shakespeare acquired it from an intermediary. The word plagiarism,by the intermediary,whispers in my ear. Layman1 (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Facebook Adaption
I think we should remove this from under adaptions and cultural references. The person who wrote this part of the articles is obvious self-promoting this piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CountHacker (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct authorship
The Shakespeare from Stratford was not a writer. The first section was changed to suggest a more likely author despite the persistence of the "Shakespeare" myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorPopper (talk • contribs) 09:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For background, please read Shakespeare authorship question and browse WP:ARBSAQ. At Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE applies—that means articles report mainstream scholarship and do not promote fringe theories. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Merchant of Venice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091125144749/http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/other_sullivan/venice/index.html to http://math.boisestate.edu/GaS/other_sullivan/venice/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202235612/http://www.bregenzerfestspiele.com/en/node/2820 to http://www.bregenzerfestspiele.com/en/node/2820
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404183405/http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-76.html to http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-76.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Character descriptions
The following was recently added to the page. It seems to be WP:OR (for more details follw that link), but I'm copying it here so that we can discuss whether there is anything here we would like to incorporate into the article. AndyJones (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters Description
Antonio: Antonio was caring, selfless person who puts others before himself. In merchant of Venice, Antonio knows that he is old and dying. He had a good life himself and wanted Bossanio to have a good life too. He knew that Bossanio wanted to go to Venice to meet a young lady named Portia, but didn’t have the money because he had invested it on his ships. Antonio was willing to risk loosing a pound of flesh after selflessly borrowing money off Shylock, to give to Bossanio. This act depicts the kind person that Antonio is and shows how much he cares for others

Shylock: Shylock was a mean old man who cared for nothing other than money, gems and material possessions. Throughout the whole book he is trying to con others and make them worse off, just so that he can have more money, or get revenge on people he doesn’t like. An example of this is when Antonio wants to borrow money from Shylock to kindly help Bossanio pay for a trip to Venice to meet a girl named Portia. Shylock agrees to lend the money, but only because if Antonio doesn’t pay back in time, the bond says that Shylock can cut a pound of flesh from Antonio. Shylock may not have liked Antonio, but wanting to kill him over it goes way to far. It shows how unkind and selfish Shylock is to other people. Another thing that portrays Shylock’s character is when Jessica runs away with some of shylocks Jews. Shylock is screaming out “My jewels, My Jessica, My jewels, My Jessica.” He cant decide what he loves more, when he should choose his daughter.

Portia: Portia was a kind, intelligent girl, who went to many lengths to prevent people from getting hurt. She is the daughter of a rich man, she would had quality schooling in her childhood, which would have lead to the knowledge of law that she showed while judging Antonio’s case. This court case is an example of Portia’s willingness to help out others in need. When she heard that Antonio was going to court, she went to all the trouble of organizing the lending of her cousins judge suit, and spending her time judging just to help out a friend in need. This action show how much she cares for her friends.

Jessica: Jessica is the daughter of shylock and she Is extremely well known for the stealing of her fathers property and his ducats. Shylock (her father) is very angry because of what she did. Shylock couldn’t believe his own daughter would betray him.

Bassiano: Bassiano is properly the most romantic person in the whole play. He hopes that he will pick the night box so that he can take Portia’s hand in marriage. If he is to marry Portia it would give him enough money to pay back all his debts to his good friend Antonio.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs) 06:30, April 3, 2008

Shylock is a strong character. He eventually earns sympathy from viewers and readers at the end of Act 4 Scene 2. Shylock was a negative character but not a villain. All villainy is negativity but not all negativity is villainy Rimi07032003 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion about the topic of the article. (See the talk page guidelines for more information.) Also, you've added a comment to a ten-year-old thread. Unless you're replying to a recent comment, please consider placing any guideline-compliant comments in a new section. Rivertorch FIREWATER  17:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"English society in the Elizabethan era has been described as "judeophobic"."
Does this really need to be watered down as such? It *was* judeophobic.50.194.115.156 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My inclination is to say no, it doesn't need to be watered down. The citation does go to a book, though, that might make that qualification. (It isn't available online, and I don't have ready access to a hard copy.) If a change is made, I'd rather see something like "Judeophobia was widespread in English society in the Elizabethan era", which at least reflects that the society wasn't universally prejudiced. Does "widespread" seem to weak? "Nearly universal"? Maybe we can find a second source. Rivertorch FIREWATER  21:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple points without having actually looked into this: Elizabethan England's relationship with the jews was… complicated. To describe them as antisemitic in the modern sense would be misleading: it would be more accurate to say they were superstitious, nationalistic, and xenophobic. Jews were not, by far, the only people subjected to the sort of prejudice, stereotyping, and fear. And the causes of that prejudice are complicated: religion was politics, and jews were other to both Catholics and Protestants, and the legacy of the medieval stereotypes of jews in the exemplum colored perceptions for people who rarely or never actually saw any jews (see Jessica (The Merchant of Venice) for one example). That being said, the issue definitely shouldn't be watered down; but some context and nuance will be needed. And, finally, judeophobia as a term is nonsense: it implies pathology (any -phobia is something you would expect to find in the DSM V). Antisemitism may have problems too, but judeophobia should be avoided unless specifically attributed to a particular speaker and it otherwise has due relevance.In any case… Thanks for looking at this. It's an important aspect to get right in the article! --Xover (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just dropping in to add a little context to the last part of what you said. The –phobia ending is commonly used in various contexts without implying a psychiatric issue (e.g., Islamophobia, homophobia and your own example, xenophobia—or hydrophobia, for that matter). If one is going to pick apart terms, antisemitism is problematic too, since the term "Semitic" is applied to some non-Jews, but that's really neither here nor there. Judeophobia is little used, compared to antisemitism, but perhaps the word can be found in the source. Rivertorch FIREWATER  16:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about sources
Does anyone else think the section on sources should be expanded? What exactly is the relationship between The Merchant of Venice and Marlowe's The Jew of Malta - that is listed as a source in the template, but not here.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Authorship
"Shakespeare" was a pseudonym. The person from Stratford was never associated with "Shakespeare." No one considered the businessman was Stratford a poet, and he and his family appear to have been mostly illiterate. The true likely author was Edward de Vere. How much longer will these ridiculous lies remain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktrainwasright (talk • contribs) 19:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * At least as long as they are scholarly mainstream. If you want to read that the true likely author was Edward de Vere, you'll have to read outside WP, but the internet is vast. Perhaps Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship has something you'll enjoy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Critical history cut from the article
added and just removed the following from the article (which I agree with, btw), so I'm stashing this here for possible future use in a massively expanded "Critical history" section (see e.g. Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and A Midsummer Night's Dream for examples of such a section).

While it is difficult to locate reviews of early performances and adaptations of The Merchant of Venice, there are many reviews of contemporary adaptations of the Shakespeare play. The Broadway production of the play in 2010, starring Al Pacino as Shylock, was widely accepted by audiences and critics alike. Journalist Ben Brantley from The New York Times published a review of the performance, emphasizing its more nuanced, multi-faceted characters and its critique of capitalism. Brantley notes how "this 'Merchant' exudes elegance, but always in the service of a vision of a society that is, at its core, most inelegant."

And we really should cover the critical history, and expand the performances and adaptations. Eventually. --Xover (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I hear Robert Greene was speechless. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The value of a ducat
Someone just added an estimate of the value of 3,000 ducats to the article (converted to current U.S. dollars based on gold bullion value). I am not so sure this is helpful. It is also unsourced. It is not clear to me that Shakespeare himself knew the value of Venetian ducats or intended for his audience to know their value. My impression is that, for the purposes of the play, "3,000 ducats" is just a plot device for the concept of "a lot of money" (although an amount within the borrowing means of a prosperous merchant tradesman and within the lending means of a prosperous moneylender). I am also not so sure that it is really very valid to attempt to convert the ducats of the late 1500s into the dollars of today, based on current gold exchange rates. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, so I reverted it. --Xover (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Someone" is "DavidForthoffer." I was not an anonymous poster.
 * It would be easy to source my post. Just link "ducats" to Ducat#Gold_ducat_of_Venice, unless you think the arithmetic (converting 3.50 grams into ounces, and multiplying by a cost of gold bullion) needs to be spelled out. Although commentaries on The Merchant of Venice talk about "a lot of money," where in the play is "a lot of money" mentioned? Frankly, 3,000 ducats is not just "a lot of money." It is a life-changing amount of money. When I originally read the play, I was not aware that 3,000 ducats was a life-changing amount of money; I vaguely recall thinking it was something on the order of $3,000, which also is "an amount within the borrowing means of a prosperous merchant tradesman and within the lending means of a prosperous moneylender." But when I realized it was a life-changing amount of money, I thought that was significant, and altered my perception of the plot. Whole careers were at stake. It is worth sharing. As for the validity of the comparison, the most valid way of conveying the value of 3,000 ducats to today's values is to compare the purchasing power of 3,000 ducats then with today's purchasing power. That's what tying the value of a ducat to the value of gold does. I also think the technique of explaining the purchasing power using a particular price of gold bullion (i.e., about what gold is selling for now) is excellent. It insulates the information from dependency on the current price of gold, while still making the point that 3,000 ducats is a life-changing amount of money. BarrelProof and Xover, you obviously have a great interest in The Merchant of Venice. I ask you to realize that it helps the reader of the play understand what is at stake. I ask you to convey to the reader of this article the magnitude of the loan. I leave it in your hands. Thank you. DavidForthoffer (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem here is, primarily, that your estimate is original research on several levels. First of all, it's not a given that the play refers to Ducat (it could be the Byzantine coin, or any one of the different Venetian variants, or simply the customary value associated with it, i.e. the mentioned 124 soldi). The main critical editions of the play (The Arden Shakespeare and The Oxford Shakespeare) are careful to hedge here and say Shylock probably means the Venetian Ducat when he talks about "Christian Ducat". Further, the raw gold value of a coin is rarely the most appropriate way to value it. Case in point, Halio values it at 9 Shilling, which, adjusted for inflation, would have been ($). This assumes that 1) Shylock really means Venetian Ducats; 2) the base value of 9 shillings is correct; 3) inflation adjustment is really the correct method to calculate its present value; 4) the year from which to calculate the value is 1596, when the play was written, and not an arbitrary year between 1284 and 1596; 5) Shakespeare's idea of a Ducat's value had any proximity to its actual value (he may have been thinking of £3000, ). Any value we give in the article based on such methods would have these problems. The best we could do would be to cite what the reliable sources tell us.
 * And while I wouldn't revert or object to an addition that is based on a high-quality reliable source, I also don't really currently feel like it's really needed. For me, the "3000 Ducats" is like any fictional sum of money, it doesn't really mean anything or bear any relationship to any real currency, it's the context that indicates its value (and since here it's secured against Antonio's commercial interests, a shipment of goods, it's clear it's a lot of money for a single person, and obviously clear that Bassanio can't raise it himself, or he wouldn't have borrowed it from Antonio).
 * PS. When used "someone" above, I believe they were simply trying to phrase their post neutrally and according to the convention on Wikipedia of discussing the edit and not the editor. I don't believe the intent was to imply that the edit had been made by some anonymous, "drive-by", user. --Xover (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insights. I think the primary problem with my estimate is not so much that it is original research but that my research is unreliable. I like your point about the raw gold value of a coin. Also, little research comparing the dollar value of gold bullion with the population shows that in the past several decades shows that the ratio has varied by an order of magnitude. Furthermore, I see that the population growth in Africa is greater by an order of magnitude than the population growth in Europe. That, along with your points, reaffirms that we have no reliable idea of what Shakespeare meant the value of 3000 ducats to be.
 * I do think it matters whether he was referring to a life-changing amount of money versus merely an amount that that Bassanio did not have. I perceived my emotions to be radically more intense now when I thought $450,000 was at stake compared to my youth when I thought only a few thousand dollars was at stake. On that basis, I suspect Shakespeare had 3000 ducats referring to a life-changing amount of money. Of course, that also is an unreliable method of concluding that Shakespeare must have meant. So even though the magnitude matters, we do not know enough about the magnitude to comment about it in the article.
 * P.S. When someone wants to talk about an edit without raising implications about the editor, I think it is better to just refer to the edit (such as, "An edit was recently made that added an estimate ...") instead of also mentioning the edit.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidForthoffer (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ali Baba and the [beyond countability] ... (European culture, a gros is 60, semitic culture, 40 is more than you can count); the pound of flesh closest to the heart is located between the legs so you may just freeze it, if you want to remove it in a clean way; lead can be pronounced the way you think, or it may be pronounced as an imperative, to lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:66FC:0:18F7:9832:3624:9595 (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Emilia Lanier
Given that one of the primary candidates put forward by anti-Stratfordians for authorship of Shakespeare’s plays was Jewish herself, it seems like one of them would have commented on the implications of that hypothesis for the antisemitism debate. Anyone aware of any sources that could be used? 2604:2D80:6984:4D00:0:0:0:6EA0 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Huh, I never noticed she was on List of Shakespeare authorship candidates. Of course it depends on sources, but it may be too WP:FRINGE to include here. I don't see any SAQ at Emilia Lanier (and it says "It has been suggested, and disputed that Lanier's family was Jewish or of partly Jewish descent."), so I'm not sure about "primary". You could try asking at Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Needs to be added to the Category "English Renaissance plays"
This article is missing from the "English Renaissance plays" category. (It's the only one of Shakespeare's plays missing there.) The article is locked now, so someone else needs to add it. 75.64.225.188 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The category Category:Plays by William Shakespeare is in Category:English Renaissance plays, and consequently per WP:SUBCAT, none of the individual plays should be in the Renaissance category. Those that are should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

More impartial sympathetic vs antagonist section?
Currently the "Antagonist" and "Sympathetic" sections are written very differently. The "Antagonist" section only presents information supporting the idea that Shylock was written to paint Jews in a negative light. The "Sympathetic" section presents both sides of the argument. Read together, this gives the reader the general idea that the "Antagonist" theory is more correct.

The "Antagonist" section comments with certainty about the play being used to paint Jews in a negative light, while the "Sympathetic" section comments that it is difficult to tell if Shylock is being portrayed sympathetically, even though the play has equally certainly been used to portray Jews in a positive light.

Suggested overhaul:


 * "English society in the Elizabethan and Jacobean era has been described as "judeophobic". English Jews had been expelled under Edward I in 1290 and were not permitted to return until 1656 under the rule of Oliver Cromwell. Poet John Donne, who was Dean of St Paul's Cathedral and a contemporary of Shakespeare, gave a sermon in 1624 perpetuating the Blood Libel – the entirely unsubstantiated anti-Semitic lie that Jews ritually murdered Christians to drink their blood and achieve salvation. In Venice and in some other places, Jews were required to wear a red hat at all times in public to make sure that they were easily identified, and had to live in a ghetto"*

This section should be moved up to under the first header "Shylock and the antisemitism debate," as it only provides background information of the era the play was written and is information used for both sides of the debate. The fact that To Kill A Mockingbird was written during a time when Black Americans didn't have rights does not mean that it is an unsympathetic portrayal of Black Americans. It might also be pertinent to note that it wasn't too long after the play came out that Jews were allowed back into England, with much of society opening up to religious debate.


 * "It is difficult to know whether the sympathetic reading of Shylock is entirely due to changing sensibilities among readers – or whether Shakespeare, a writer who created complex, multi-faceted characters, deliberately intended this reading."

Get rid of this sentence. It is not supported by the monologue nor by any third party -- it is not difficult at all to read this monologue as sympathetic. The express purpose of Shylock in this moment is to get his audience to sympathize with him. I can't even find any quote in any outside source that does not view this monologue as sympathetic. It's like saying that "We don't know whether Hamlet's 'To be or not to be' is about suicide or if that reading is due to changing sensibilities among the readers."

There is also information left out of the "sympathetic" section which surprises me (reading the opinions of the people in this talk section surprises me too). The most important thing to note is that the only action that people perceive Shylock as being "evil" for is upholding his end of the contract. The only way to read Merchant as antisemitic is if you yourself hold different values for Jews and Christians and don't apply the Christians' own stated values to their own displayed actions. Shylock must let revenge go and give mercy...but the Christian characters are content to keep their revenge, showing no mercy to Shylock.

Here is one fairly balanced article that includes more of the information I was talking about on the sympathetic side --

[On Portia:] "Although she waxes eloquent about grace, let’s not forget, says Heschel, 'the way she deceives Shylock is through revenge, and hair-splitting legalism.' She betrays her entire oration about showing people mercy when she fails to show Shylock mercy. Of course, Portia’s hypocrisy should come as no surprise — she announces it during her very first scene. 'I can easier teach twenty what were good to be do than to be one of the twenty to follow mine own teaching,' she tells her maid, Nerissa.

I would definitely suggest keeping the information in each section supportive of their respective sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:702:4950:c0e4:5673:a4d7:2409 (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! I currently have no opinion of my own, but hopefully other editors will, you never know about WP talkpages. You have but some effort into this, so I wanted to mention that you can "advertise" the discussion a little. If you want, put messages at for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, saying basically "There is a discussion about X going on at Talk:The_Merchant_of_Venice, your input is welcome." That may increase participation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021
this makes no sense at all... we students expect more content due to our class project work and thus need more content. 223.226.123.112 (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021
Shylock should be treated fair in the court and the judge treated good and gave him what he wanted. Kylerdaws55 (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No source for Nicholas Rowe's opinion
There's no source in the text. Here's one.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-scholars-still-debate-whether-or-not-shakespeares-merchant-venice-anti-semitic-180958867/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.126.67 (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

what is the play most famous for?
The Answer surely is for "a pound of flesh" (40 million answers on Google) and not "Hath not a Jew eyes" (1 million hits). Telaviv1 (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022
Recommend changing "contrasted with their obviously superior Christian value of mercy" to "contrasted with their supposedly obviously superior Christian value of mercy" to clarify that this is an interpretation. Alsetmusic (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The view is clearly attributed to "Elizabethan Christians" in the work, and is not an actual interpretation of values in Wikivoice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The merchant of venice class 10th textual questions
Please add the questions and answers 110.224.225.189 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That doesn't sound like something that should be on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

https://merchantofvenice1936.co.uk/
New production of Merchant of Venice set in London in 1936 with Shylock as a woman. 2A01:4B00:A8E2:1D00:3868:3945:E9C1:DBBF (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit for page
While it might be a point of contention on whether Shakespeare intended "the merchant of Venice" to be antisemitic, the play contains blatant instances of antisemitic by modern standards. "Merchant of Venice" perpetuates common Jewish stereotypes and antisemitic tropes through its antagonizism of Shylock. Shakespeare places Shylock as the antithesis of Antonio and the non-Jewish characters, by portraying Shylock as a greedy moneylender who is consumed by money and revenge.

An egregious instance of antisemitism occurs in Act I, scene III, when Antonio tells Bassanio, "Hie thee, gentle Jew.//The Hebrew will turn Christian; he grows kind." in reference to Shylock. Throughout the play, Shylock's identification with Judaism is highlighted and reinforced; for example, in Act II, scene II, Lancelet decides to resign as Shylock's servant, and exclaims, "to him, father, for I//am a Jew if I serve the Jew any longer". The conclusion of the play is a culmination of the overarching antisemitic theme. Shylock is subdued through his forced conversion to Christianity, and is spared execution by the Christian characters. This forced conversion can be perceived as a merciful and compassionate act by the non-Jewish characters as well as an expression of the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. 2600:1000:B161:275B:392C:D728:EF71:6236 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition, the way that Shylock is portrayed (in the image that shows Shylock being chased by children) suggests that he is a conniving old man who is a coward in the face of his folly (this seems to represent the entirety of the people of the Jewish faith at the time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco9971 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

By definition it isn't antisemitic however it is surely antijudaic, which isn't much better. The intolerance is religious, not racial - the Jew is offered conversion as an alternative to persecution. Antisemitism is, as far as I'm aware, unheard of prior to the 1930's. I'm well aware that Jews were brutally persecuted since Christianity gained power with the conversion of Constantine. Hitler's antisemitism was a small but significant development of what had gone before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.185.228 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment
@Pramish Chandra, Shakespeare is (according to WP) the third most translated individual author in the world, and Shakespeare's influence remains significant and quite visible in all kinds of fiction.

Of course he is to varying extent taught in schools the world over, but there is no reason to point that out in this specific article. Unlike cricket, even non-Commonwealth countries know about him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Prince of Arorgon
The casket test 49.205.119.77 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Historical error in plot
@AlexAndrews, hello. I'll reply here to your message on my talkpage, the article talkpage is the default place to discuss article issues.

I've never read the play myself, so I can't say if your edit here is an improvement or not, perhaps someone else will comment on that. However, I removed the comment/ref on historical accuracy, it's not WP-style to put editor's comments in ref-tags. Your source is a WP:BLOG, and while it's not outlandish to summarize some scholarly comment on that, the plot section is not the place. My knee-jerk reaction is "so what?" or in WP-speak WP:PROPORTION. Shakespeare was not an historian, as your source notes. Also, afaict, your source doesn't say "the play was wrong on this point", but maybe I missed it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång
 * Hi. Jessica eloping with Lorenzo (for them to marry following her conversion to Christianity) and stealing a lot of her father's riches while he is out to dinner with the Christians Antonio and Bassanio is a very important plot point in the play, so it is definitely worth noting that this particular plot device is actually historically inaccurate - the Christian-Jew theme is absolutely central to the play. It also rather proves that whoever wrote the play most likely hadn't actually visited Venice.
 * The more I read the play, the more important I see that the play is, even today. It is the only play of Shakespeare's that I know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't turn out to be his most important. If as you say you haven't seen/read it, then, on the face of it, it is just a dramatic comedy and love story. But if you really look into it, it is so much more than that. As I am slowly learning. AlexAndrews (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can get your hands on Upstart Crow, I recommend it. "They call me "Puck". As in What the?" Cunk on Shakespeare is also worth watching. "I've been studying Shakespeare, ever since I was asked to do this program." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @AlexAndrews, like @Masato.harada says, stop inserting your own commentary, in refs or in notes or whatever. This is not the website for that. If there are any "errors (and of course there is)" in a work of fiction to mention, we do it WP:FILMHIST style, with sources at least as good as . Most often, it's not interesting per WP:PROPORTION. But there are exeptions: The_Winter%27s_Tale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Quick reply: yes, I always wanted to watch Upstart Crow but somehow never found the time to do so 8-( But I'm a big fan of Philomena Cunk!
 * PS please see the topic Plot Summarry below. AlexAndrews (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Quick reply: yes, I always wanted to watch Upstart Crow but somehow never found the time to do so 8-( But I'm a big fan of Philomena Cunk!
 * PS please see the topic Plot Summarry below. AlexAndrews (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)