shakespeare the progressive?

[reddevil]

it's quite obvious he would not have been a left winger in the way in the modern definition. but on a number of issues he was certainly ahead of his time. note his rejection of racism with the sympathetic portrayals of othello and shylock. or his satire on extreme patriarchy in the taming of the shrew? he even called for legalised prostitution in measure for measure. there are also a few rumours he may have been a closet "papist" and bisexual. your thoughts?

[New Tet]

it's quite obvious he would not have been a left winger in the way in the modern definition. but on a number of issues he was certainly ahead of his time. note his rejection of racism with the sympathetic portrayals of othello and shylock. or his satire on extreme patriarchy in the taming of the shrew? he even called for legalised prostitution in measure for measure. there are also a few rumours he may have been a closet "papist" and bisexual. your thoughts?

We do well to remember that the Elizabethan age was a very progressive era; one which oversaw the consolidation of the Reformation against Church rule and the rise of incipient feminism (Elizabeth was the first woman in History to rule an empire without a Royal Consort. Mary, her paternal sister, had been the first woman to inherit a kingdom while unmarried).

Moreover, in some of Shakespeare's plays, you find women defying conventional female roles such as in The Merchant of Venice, etc., reflecting a subtle change in social attitudes...

[Il Medico]

it's quite obvious he would not have been a left winger in the way in the modern definition. but on a number of issues he was certainly ahead of his time. note his rejection of racism with the sympathetic portrayals of othello and shylock. or his satire on extreme patriarchy in the taming of the shrew? he even called for legalised prostitution in measure for measure. there are also a few rumours he may have been a closet "papist" and bisexual. your thoughts?
I wouldn't dismiss Shakespeare so soon. He was a genius, and geniuses tend to fall on the far left of their society. His ideas were the leftism of his day. So I doubt, had he been born into our society, that he would not have been like Lennon or Einstein and supported socialism. Also, even the casual Shakespeare reader can see he was Bi, maybe even gay.

[berlitz23]

No Shakespeare is responsible for the degeneration and aberration of the theater, this disinterested idea of theater which wishes a theatrical performance to leave the public intact without setting off one image that will shake the organism to its foundations and leave an ineffaceable scare.

[New Tet]

No Shakespeare is responsible for the degeneration and aberration of the theater, this disinterested idea of theater which wishes a theatrical performance to leave the public intact without setting off one image that will shake the organism to its foundations and leave an ineffaceable scare.

Uh, what?!?

[Trystan]

If I remember my GCSE English Lit. correctly, Elizabethan audiences were, apparently, supposed to (and did) laugh at Shylock because a.) he was a Jew and b.) he was a very unfortunate (and bitter) and Jew. This interpretation surprised me . . . when I read his speech (you know, the "hath a Jew not eyes" thing) I was convinced that Shakespeare was being sympathetic.


I wouldn't dismiss Shakespeare so soon. He was a genius, and geniuses tend to fall on the far left of their society. His ideas were the leftism of his day. So I doubt, had he been born into our society, that he would not have been like Lennon or Einstein and supported socialism. Also, even the casual Shakespeare reader can see he was Bi, maybe even gay.

Geniuses do not tend to fall into any particular political group. Wanger, Heidegger, etc. - plenty of geniuses were right-wing. And I'm not sure Shakespeare was bi or gay. There isn't much evidence . . . I think men just had more affection for each other back then, as they did in Walt Whitman's time (an affection that might seem homoerotic in our matcho era). It is a possibility, of course, that he was gay . . . but I don't think so.

[New Tet]

If I remember my GCSE English Lit. correctly, Elizabethan audiences were, apparently, supposed to (and did) laugh at Shylock because a.) he was a Jew and b.) he was a very unfortunate (and bitter) and Jew. This interpretation surprised me . . . when I read his speech (you know, the "hath a Jew not eyes" thing) I was convinced that Shakespeare was being sympathetic.

And he was, I suppose, inasmuch as he gave Shylock a voice.



Geniuses do not tend to fall into any particular political group. Wanger, Heidegger, etc. - plenty of geniuses were right-wing. And I'm not sure Shakespeare was bi or gay. There isn't much evidence . . . I think men just had more affection for each other back then, as they did in Walt Whitman's time. It is a possibility, of course, that he was gay . . . but I don't think so.

In The Merchant, Antonio is portrayed as being in love with, with--I forgot his name--you know, the guy who's angling for the princess' hand? A good metaphor of Elizabeth I's eternal game of cat and mouse with her suitors.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If I remember my GCSE English Lit. correctly, Elizabethan audiences were, apparently, supposed to (and did) laugh at Shylock because a.) he was a Jew and b.) he was a very unfortunate (and bitter) and Jew. This interpretation surprised me . . . when I read his speech (you know, the "hath a Jew not eyes" thing) I was convinced that Shakespeare was being sympathetic.

Geniuses do not tend to fall into any particular political group. Wanger, Heidegger, etc. - plenty of geniuses were right-wing. And I'm not sure Shakespeare was bi or gay. There isn't much evidence . . . I think men just had more affection for each other back then, as they did in Walt Whitman's time (an affection that might seem homoerotic in our matcho era). It is a possibility, of course, that he was gay . . . but I don't think so.

Right. Shylock falls into Shakespeare's unpassionate "squares" category. He makes fun of the character because he is obsessed with rules and dismisses passion/love - he won't let his daughter date the man she loves (a major sin in Shakespeare's comedies). He is so obessed with following the letter of the law rather than the spirit that he demands a pound of flesh.

I think Shakes meant this character to be a sympathetic buffoon - like the town leaders in "Dirty Dancing" that won't let the kids dance!

It's a testament to the skill of Shakespeare that he wrote a really sympathetic character and now that we know about and rightly condemn the anti-Jewish oppression of that era we can see that same character as actually a sympathetic victim rather than the offender.

Likewise, although we still see Iago as a villain, he is very sympathetic and we know why he might be pissed at being overlooked by Othello.

Shakespeare was a fantastic writer and most of the plays have stood the test of time. Is he left? He diffidently pandered to the masses at some points, while mocking them and relegating their problems as petty compared to the problems of nobles in other instances. It's hard to say what his politics were, just that he treated most of his main charters with understandable and real human emotions (at least in the later plays).

[Bilan]

No Shakespeare is responsible for the degeneration and aberration of the theater, this disinterested idea of theater which wishes a theatrical performance to leave the public intact without setting off one image that will shake the organism to its foundations and leave an ineffaceable scare.

I found King Lear did this.

[Killfacer]

Didn't Shylock poison a whole convent of nuns? Or was that Barabas in the jew of malta?

Either way, they're both pretty disgraceful representations of jewish people.

[Bandito]

Although I admire Shakespeare's style, the Merchant of Venice is simple racism and xenophobia. For example, when he defined Shylock's feeling about losing his daughter he said "Oh, my daughter! Oh, my ducats! Oh, my daughter!", which explicitely means that his love for money is equal to love for his family. Or the scene from the trial when he Antonio says "Can't you see that this is a Jew you are talking about? There is no love in his jewish heart".
Although it describes a moral zeitgeist from that time, it is still not an excuse.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Even if geniuses aren't generally leftist, geniuses do tend to make more "rational" conclusions. Those who believed in right-wing philosophy may have been believing rationally according to the information and experiences they had. I mean leftism tends to be rather democratic and altruistic. People tend to be rather idiotic and selfish. It's not difficult for anyone to be discouraged by the negatives of humanity and adopt a right-wing position. In some respects, left and right-wing means optimistic or pessimistic. Both claim they are the true "realists," but what is optimistic becomes realistic in a room full of optimists, and what is pessimistic is realistic in a room full of pessimists. They are rather self-perpetuating ideologies.

Ah my good friend Shakespeare. One of the greatest human beings of all time. A God among insects. I support equality, but really, Shakespeare was amazing. Politically, he had very inspirational and left-wing viewpoints? Why? Because leftism is often about love, and Shakespeare was in touch with his emotions. He experienced and understood evil and good in their truest form. He was closer to knowing the true nature of reality than many of us could hope to be. There is no way someone in touch with their self and the truest sense of reality could read Shakespeare, understand Shakespeare, and not see left-wing sympathies in his work. I know this is rather Platonic and appealing to a sense of "it's obvious and you're a moron if you don't agree." However, who really cares? He is really damn cool.

[Il Medico]

. . . I think men just had more affection for each other back then, as they did in Walt Whitman's time (an affection that might seem homoerotic in our matcho era). It is a possibility, of course, that he was gay . . . but I don't think so.
Walt Whitman was gay and had many open relations with men. And when it comes to creative geniuses, the only ones I can think of always fall towards the left. For example, Lennon, Hemingway, Diego Riveria and his wife Frida. There seems to be a clear left bend in the artistic and intellectual world.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There seems to be a clear left bend in the artistic and intellectual world.

Well, the world seems to shift artists and intellectuals left at any rate.

All artists are products of their times - what would Diego Rivera and Freida's art and politics have been without the political times they were living in; without the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War, the Mexican Revolution? John Lennon is the same, he clearly had some working class consciousness all along, but became more radical because of the anti-war and black power struggles.

[Il Medico]

That is what I was saying. Shakespeare would probably been a progressive if he lived now a days. He was also a progressive for his time.

[ZeroNowhere]

Although I admire Shakespeare's style, the Merchant of Venice is simple racism and xenophobia."He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew: hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge."
Perhaps it was racist, but certainly not in a simple manner.

[Bandito]

It IS racist. But as I said, it doesn't move much from a moral zeitgeist of that time. Which may be "friendly" and maybe a little progressive attitude, but certainly not the stuff we should applaud.

[Angry Young Man]

It IS racist. But as I said, it doesn't move much from a moral zeitgeist of that time. Which may be "friendly" and maybe a little progressive attitude, but certainly not the stuff we should applaud.

Agreed. Othello is only an 'honourable' character because he has converted to Christianity. And 'turning Turk' is used as an insult, often by Othello, because there was the supposition that Muslims were lesser people than Christians. There wasn't really much to be progressive about. Now Milton on the other hand, was as was said earlier, on the left of his contemporary society. And then there's Shelley, where all I can say is :wub::wub::wub::wub::wub:...


...:wub::wub:

But we cannot assume a monopoly on creative genius. Poet Marxists are better than Marxist poets, if you follow. Compare The People By Neruda to Bilan's little ditty about liberals.

[New Tet]

But why do we take umbrage with history and its players, my Lords?

Shakespeare a racist and imperialist? So what?

He made good plays. I, for one am grateful that he did.

Maybe we should also be just a little angry at our socialist forebears who were sexists, racists and the such?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The Merchant of Venice is widely interpreted to be progressive rather than conservative. Shakespeare deliberately wrote his works to allow multiple interpretations. This is both a reflection of the diversity of life, his genius, and good marketing skills.

As for his personal views, how can we get them from his plays? He wrote his plays to an audience. His plays are diverse and open to a broad number of interpretations. Even if he was progressive, the nature of his society would make telling others about it risky. This was a society where atheism, homosexuality, et cetera, were criminalized. He couldn't really go have a parade about his progressive attitudes.

I can't read the Merchant of Venice without feeling sympathetic towards Shylock. Was the play progressive? It depends on how ugly the actor playing Shylock is and whether he was given some sort of plastic nose to wear.

The Merchant of Venice can be read very sympathetically towards Shylock as a character.

[More Fire for the People]

Othello is about an African king and an inter-racial relationship. Twelfth Night is about the ambiguity and social character of gender roles. And Midsummer Night's Dream is about a rebellion against patriarchy and the misfortune religion causes.

[New Tet]

[...]

I can't read the Merchant of Venice without feeling sympathetic towards Shylock. Was the play progressive? It depends on how ugly the actor playing Shylock is and whether he was given some sort of plastic nose to wear.

The Merchant of Venice can be read very sympathetically towards Shylock as a character.

You make it sound like it's such a stretch! I know I'm being a snob about it but I think that no one but a hardened anti-Semite could fail to see Shylock as the victim of the whole affair.

He is defrauded; his daughter is seduced and induced to abscond with his money, her dowry. And when he has a chance to get his revenge from the people who played him so vilely, even that is blunted by Christian morality and law.

That's the story of a million and more Jews throughout history. I wonder how any person, be he Jew or Gentile, not be moved by Shylock's dilemma?

Who invented the literary anti-hero?

[Angry Young Man]

Othello is about an African king and an inter-racial relationship. Twelfth Night is about the ambiguity and social character of gender roles. And Midsummer Night's Dream is about a rebellion against patriarchy and the misfortune religion causes.

You didn't make any kind of synthesis there.