h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Look, I'm sorry to be po-faced but this article just doesn't do what its title suggests. For starters, it is absolute nonsense to say that anti-Semitism 'was practiced in England throughout its history' and it is even more outlandish to claim that it was 'almost to the same degree as that displayed during the Second World War'.

What evidence is there of such a level of 'anti-Semitism' in Elizabethan England? Surely one of Shakespeare's plays, good though it is, will not yet be regarded as evidence, even if it can be construed as an indication of the general mood against usurers and Jews. And Shakespeare makes dills out of all sorts of people - he is anything but discriminatory. And it is not hard to argue that his treatment of Shylock is a great deal more compassionate than it first appears.

The article does not tell me anything about Elizabethan culture or the role of Jews in it. We know, for instance, men and women were being executed because they were Catholics, Puritans, and witches, but you have not told us how many Jews died for their religion. Thousands of Catholics, and extreme Protestants fled England; how many Jews were similarly forced to go into exile?

My apologies again, but your last sentence is, I think, at the heart of my disagreement with you: a 'critical modern eye' destroys the perspective. To make sense of this complex subject, it needs to be looked at within its own context and according to the prevailing social norms, and definitely without modern standards intruding into the judgement.

Though I have my own quibbles of this sounding like a rant, Jews were in fact prosecuted and seen as second-class citizens in most of Europe. In fact, in Venice, they were seen as unhealthy and on the same level as prostitutes, eventually to be ushered into a small ghettos courted off from the rest of the city by two drawbridges and watchguards in boats along the canals. No Jew was allowed to leave the ghetto during the night, and they were under almost bi-annual riots as the locals would come and try to oust the Jews. So, there was problems for the Jews, after all...

Hi NYC Student,

No argument with pretty-well everything you say. My point was/is that an article about Elizabethan culture and Jews needs to be specific - like you for instance gave examples of the treatment of Jews in Venice. What I would expect to find in an article of this kind is what the attitude of the Elizabethan government was to Jews and in what ways they were persecuted or discriminated against. No argument that Jews have been generally sterotyped as per Shakespeare, and that they have been demonised, marginalised, mistrusted and persecuted. So have lots of other groups, for example in the Elizabethan Age witches, and Jesuits, and Puritans. There is documented evidence to tell us of both the governmental and the cultural attitudes to these groups.

Sorry cobber, I still think that an article with this title needs more than sweeping generalisations and reference to the Merchant of Venice.

um... I don't claim to be a scholar of any sort but I always thought Will potrayed Shylock as a character that you could feel sympathy for. Many of the other characters are merely unlovable fops. Shylocks speach ('does not a jew bleed if he is cut' thingumy) is one of the most intelligent (if a little bitter) arguments against rascism. There is a definite element of tragedy to his story and if he was to be a villian it seems unusual to include such sympathetic characteristics. I'm sure it is possible to blow this argument clean out of the water but I just thought I'd give a simple man's (my) reaction to the play/story.
PS I also with you W Colne about this article....
PPS excuse any spelling mistakes i was in a rush....

I agree with all that has been said. The Jews (and many other groups, including the poor) were treated (by modern standards) abominably. But the article does call for a little more evidence that one play. Shakespeare was notorious for pandering to the whims of his audience (especially his rich patrons) - look at the hatchet job he did on Richard III, who is nowadays considered as nowhere near as bad as he was portrayed by Will the Bard.
Looking at the behaviour of a bygone age with modern perspective is bound to be flawed - it is not disputed, for instance, that there was a great need to borrow money and that the only ones (with enough prudence to have some to hand) who could lend were the Jews. At exorbitant rates, it must be said. Both sides were to blame for that. (Another good example is Ivanhoe, which was set in the 13th century but written about 500 years later - the Jews are portrayed as users, but get a very sympathetic picture painted of them).
And, sorry but I can't let this one go, systematic anihilation (sp?) of a race was not the master plan 800 years ago, but 55 years ago there was a definate timetable to rid Europe of Jews (and others). There is no comparison. Comparison can be made with the fact that in both periods of history many millions of people stood by and watched as the rights of Jews were eroded, and they were forced to live in Ghettos. 55 years ago people in general had many more rights and, perhaps, have less excuse for standing by and letting it happen. But put yourself in their shoes: who of us can honestly say that we would have stood up to be counted. I have small kids, and know for a fact that I'm brave until I consider that fact. And 800 years ago? The pesants (not to mention most other people) were happy just to be able to exist, they wouldn't have considered the rights of Jews any more than they would have considered the rights of cows or women!
And, to continue my "rant", do we need to dwell in the past? The way one or other groups of people were treated 100, 200, 800 years ago doesn't really have any relevance today: look how we're treating each other now! We're obviously not learning from our mistakes. So instead of studying the past, perhaps we should look for some more solutions?

Hi Sho,

That was no rant, it was solid argument, and very persuasive too. Except for the last paragraph!!!! What happened 100, or 200, or 800 years ago does have relevance to today. There is no way that you can really understand yourself and your present if you don't have some understanding of how you got here and from where. I agree with you about the way we often don't learn the lessons from the past. But just on another, slightly different point, return to the Jews for a moment. It is true that, some eight hundred years ago they were being hounded from pillar to post, portrayed as quasi demons, and a little later stereotyped as usurers. There were all sorts of reasons for that, and those reasons are at least not hard to understand, even if we are shocked by them nowadays. But the point is, Jews are still looked at in strange ways by a lot of people/countries. It would be a really fascinating exercise to study the subject and see if some logical explanations could be found. I mean for instance, why does the beaky-nosed moneylender stereotype still spring so readily to mind when some people think of Jews? Is it Shakespeare, or is that too easy an answer?

Walter

Hi Walter!

Ok. I admit that the past does have relevance, but I don't think we should dwell on it. We have to study it and learn from our mistakes. Which we don't: we just study study study and repeat. I also don't think we pay enough attention to the context of our (collective) past actions. It is difficult for us today to understand why Jews were so pilloried. But seen from the point of view of a 12th century farmer, who had to scratch a living, live in a hovel and watch some of his children die from malnutrition/bad diet the Jews with their seeming endless riches (and therefore access to healthcare, better accommodation etc etc) must have been an easy target. We hate and fear what we don't understand - this has been true since the dawn of time.

As to the image of the "beaky nosed" image I'm not sure (since I haven't seen any original folios) if Shakespeare put any pictures in! But certainly much more recent images contribute to this picture. You only have to watch the film Oliver! (from the 60s?) and watch Ron Moody's portrayal of Fagin. Probably that is copying other images, but it is a persistant one. A recent tv version of Ivanhoe did a much better "job" on Isaac of York, he looked dignified and didn't exclaim "oy vey already!" every 5 minutes and the only time he rubbed his hands together he was warming them by the fire! It's a pity that image hasn't replaced the other one. I think literature then reflected rather than causes public opinion. If Shakespeare had made Shylock a more sympathetic character he wouldn't have had an audience. (not like now where people would flock to a sympathetic portrayal of Pol Pot!)

I read an interesting thing about Jewish religion in the FT recently. It said that their whole life is governed by a set of more than 600 commandments (makes the Christian 10 seem very paltry!) and that it is strange that the 7 or 8 which cover diet are much more well known than the 100 plus to do with the way they must conduct their business. It went on to point out that these commandments, when "adopted" by non-Jewish companies, are headline making in that they cover such things as (put in a modern context) not buying from supplies from companies using child labour. Perhaps this is the stereotype Jewish organisations should actively try to promote? Although why any one section of the community should try to show their good points off is beyond me! (I belong to the half of the population which experiences discrimination in just about all cultures - the female half - and I never ever show off my good points)

Hi Sho,

Well, if your 'good points' are anywhere near as good as your insight and argument they would certainly be worth showing off!!

Could not agree more with everything you said, except one point (got to have one) which I'll come to in a moment. Have you seen Alec Guiness' Fagin in the Oliver Twist from about maybe fifty years ago, with Robert Newton as the most evil Bill Sykes you could ever imagine, and managing not to look like Long John Silver? Now Sir Alec's Fagin could have been taken straight from Dicken's book, and I think Moody used Guiness as his model. I haven't seen the TV version of Ivanoe, but Scott's novel is worth a read for yet another treatment of Jews, although I have to say that didn't really come out in the Robert Taylor/Elizabeth Taylor film of the 1950s.

It is very interesting indeed what you said about Shylock - where does the 'Uriah Heep', bent-over, lanky-haired, hook-nosed, whining, cunning shyster representation come from, because the Bard sure did not write him that way? Even so, I think Shakespeare, as he so often did, gave a fairly even-handed if not slightly sympathetic portrayal of Shylock, but I'm open to being told I'm an idiot on this (or anything else for that matter).

Don't know if this is advancing the cause of Jews, Shakespeare, Elizabethan culture or anything else, but it is most enjoyable to swap thoughts.

Walter

Good Day Walter!

Actually I think it helps not to see Shakespeare (brilliant as he was - don't get me wrong, I like most of what I have read, especially King Bloody Lear) as the writer of documentaries - what he wrote was for entertainment. I look at lots of his plays as an enlarged reflection of popular thought. But then I'm like that

Walter Scott (Ivanhoe, btw, is my absolute favourite novel ever) was fairly sympathetic in his portrayal of Isaac and Rebecca, but wasn't too impressed with the Jews in genaral. But his tone was much less harsh than Shakespeare and that probably reflects the time he lived in. (When did the Jews eventually get back to Britain?) Jews had been away for a long time, and he was rich (I think) so he probably didn't have many dealings with them. Even so, when reading Ivanhoe it is difficult for me not to be outraged at Isaac's treatment, and not to think that the activities of the Knights Templar is abhorrent. If I were 200 or 300 years older, I would be shouting encouragement and supporting the Templars. And as for Richard 1 - the book (as does history in general) regards him as some kind of super hero and John as a complete nasty piece of work. Well, at least John was there. Even if he did bleed the country dry!

Apart from Fagin, I can't really remember any evil Jews in Dickens - and Fagin need not have been Jewish, at that time there were plenty of shady characters who could have taken his place. And he wasn't as downright evil as Bill Sykes (I always think of Oliver Reed doing that - he was horrible, I haven't seen the other version).

It still worries me, however, that when we look back on all these things (even when we study Chaucer) that have happened in history we still apply our modern critical eye (and morals) to these events.

Throughout many, many years, many, many of us have studied, analysed and drawn conclusions about shylock and Shakespeare's characterisation of him. We have disected every word with a fine tooth comb and not really achieved anything except the personal conclusions of whether we think he is a victim, a villain or neither!
However, altering the perspective of approach to this story, and adopting a philosophical learning eye, what if Shakespeare was an alchemist? It is so that alchemy groups were popular amongst "creative" people in Elizabethan times, they were secret or hermetic societies that used symbolism in their writings, plays and art, and having a quite advanced (for that era) knowledge of the human psych, (psychology had yet to be discovered as a viable science)
understood how to "manipulate" the emotional and mental responses of audiences...imagine if you can an audience of 500 at Will's play. We know that half'ish will view the play as a tragedy and half'ish as comedy! However, academics at that time and modern times would view it as neither! why? well because esoterically life is about learning, esoterically learning is acheived through deep empathy, deep empathy is simply adopting the situation of another. If we approach life in that way, and because we learn from each experience(or should do)next time that situatuation comes round we can overcome it with relative ease, because we UNDERSTAND the reaction it has upon us, and know how to deal with it. When we are empathetic, we are experiencing anothers situation without having to LIVE it.
Maybe Shakespeare was a psychoanalyst???
Changing the nation, one step at a time.