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.