‘Scorned my Nation:’ A Comparison of Translations of The Merchant of Venice into German, Hebrew,...

CHAPTER IShakespeare, Jews, and theMissing Link:German Translations andAdaptationsof The Merchant of Venice

In 1991, Harold Bloom edited a collection ofarticles under the title Shylock, containingvarious discussions of Jewish representation inThe Merchant of Venice. In the introduction to thiscollection he claims that The Merchant of Venice is ananti-Semitic play. He writes that he fears thathe reads Shakespeare “as he meant to be read”:

One had best state this matter very plainly: torecover the comic splendor of The Merchant of Venice now,you need to be either a scholar or an anti-Semite, orbest of all an anti-Semitic scholar.1

But evaluating Jewish representation in thisplay, as it is portrayed through the curious andenigmatic character of Shylock, is a matter thatcannot be stated as plainly as Bloom suggests.On the one hand, one can easily point toShylock’s prejudice, as it is expressed in hisstatement about Antonio in Act I, scene iii: “Ihate him for he is a Christian,” or to theinhuman expression of his greed in Act III,scene i: “I would my daughter were dead at myfoot, and the jewels in her ear!”2 On the otherhand, it is in the same scene, in which Shylockseems to prefer jewelry to the life of his

14 Shakespeare, Jews, and the Missing Link

daughter, that he delivers his “speech,” inwhich he explains the motives for his actions.Shylock’s “speech” is, of course, a part of adialogue. However, the passage in which Shylockasserts the humanity of the Jews, declaring thatthey have eyes, hands, dimensions, and emotions,has become a famous part of the play that isoften recited as a compelling statement againstanti-Semitism. In 1983, Yiddish actor HarryAriel translated Shylock’s speech into Yiddish,along with his answer to Antonio in Act I, sceneiii,3 for a London performance. Certainly, therecitation of Shylock’s speech by Ariel is meantas a philo-Semitic statement, which, as DavidMazower writes, adds Ariel’s name to “a longline of Yiddish actors who have portrayedShylock in Yiddish.”4

A well-known recitation of Shylock’s speechcan be found in Ernst Lubitsch’s 1942 film, To Beor Not to Be.5 In this film, it is Shylock’s speech,rather than Hamlet’s soliloquy, that isdelivered in one of its most emotional scenes. AJewish actor recites Shylock’s speech in whatcould very well be his final “live performance”during Hitler’s visit to the theater. The speechhas such a stunning effect that the Nazisoldiers are almost made to see the error oftheir ways, and the actor takes advantage oftheir temporary confusion to escape. The“stunning effect” of this performance has to dowith the fact that it is delivered by thecharacter of Greenberg, a minor actor who isnever meant to be given a major role, and who isforced to “steal the show” through compellingcircumstances that situate him in the middle of

15“Scorned My Nation”

the action. The role of Shylock fits Greenberg’ssituation well, as the character of Shylock veryoften seems to have the same “stunning effect.”It is Antonio, rather than Shylock, who is “themerchant of Venice.” And, Shylock, accorded byShakespeare merely with the role of “a Jew,”6 isnot a part of any of the three couples whoselove stories make up the plot of the play. Yet,Shylock seems to “steal the show,” as one ofShakespeare’s most controversial, enigmatic, anddisturbing characters. His character is thesubject of numerous studies such as HermannSinsheimer’s Shylock, The History of a Character; or, the Mythof the Jew,7 John Gross’s Shylock : a Legend and Its Legacy,8

Martin Jaffe’s Shylock and the Jewish Question,9 andmany others.10 Shylock’s character also inspirescreative works such as Gotthold EphraimLessing’s famous late eighteenth-century drama,Nathan der Weise [Nathan the Wise],11 Ludwig Lewisohn’s1931 novel, The Last Days of Shylock,12 Ari Even Zahav’sHebrew novel, קקקקקקק—קקקקקק קקקקקק [Shylock—TheJew of Venice],13 Mark Leiren-Young’s 1996 Canadianplay, Shylock,14 and a recent Canadian film by thesame title, directed by Pierre Lasry.15 Shylock’scharacter has become, like a number of otherminor characters in Shakespeare’s plays, one ofthe most memorable and intriguing elements ofthe play in which it appears.16

But unlike Shakespearean characters such asCaliban, Malvolio, Puck, or Falstaff, the enigmathat surrounds Shylock’s character is notlimited to its overshadowing of other charactersin The Merchant of Venice, or even to its infusion of


the play with political, ethical, and religiousissues. The Jewish moneylender who claimsAntonio’s flesh has become an icon of Jewishrepresentation that is used well beyond theboundaries of Shakespeare’s work. As Sinsheimerwrites, Shylock’s character has come torepresent, for better or worse, the image of theJew at different places and times:

I am not aware that the Danish countries are stillregarded as loquacious Poloniuses or Moors as jealousand murderous Othellos. The Jews, however, are stilllooked upon as Shylocks.17

Gross adds in the introduction to his book:

Each of Shakespeare’s plays is a self-containedworld…. To concentrate on a single character is torisk losing sight of this. But Shylock is a specialcase. Not only does he stand out from hissurroundings in peculiarly stark isolation; his mythhas often flourished with very little reference toThe Merchant of Venice as a whole, quite often with noneat all.18

But, of course, it is Shylock’s relation tothe Shakespearean world that renders itsignificant, and, in some cases, ratherdisturbing. As a number of critics mention, thepopularity of Shylock as an icon of Jewishrepresentation, and of The Merchant of Venice as adefinitive text about the relations between Jewsand non-Jews, is made all the more enigmatic bythe fact that very few Jews lived in Englandduring the time in which the play was written.In the conclusion of his book, Medieval Stereotypesand Modern Antisemitism, Robert Chazan writes:


Shakespeare wrote The Merchant of Venice at a point whenJews had long been absent from the English scene….His Shylock need not be explained as deriving fromthe traditional doctrine of Jewish guilt for theCrucifixion…. The roots of the Shakespearean portraitlie in the rich European folklore that the twelfthcentury began to create…. Long after the Jews hadleft much of northern Europe, the ideational legacyof the mid-twelfth century maintained its hold on theEuropean imagination.19

1 Harold Bloom, ed., Shylock, New York: Chelsea HousePublishers, 1991: 3.

2 William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, in TheComplete Works, biography by Charles Symmons, D.D.,London: Atlantis, 1980.

3 Interestingly, the two scenes in which Shylockcomplains about Antonio’s treatment are marked byinverted citations: Act I, scene iii, and Act III, scenei.

4 David Mazower, Yiddish Theater in London, London: Museumof the Jewish West End, 1987.

5 This film is better known for its 1983 production,which was directed by Allan Johnson, and stars MelBrooks (who also produced the film) as FrederickBronski. The character of Greenberg is played in 1942 byFelix Bressart.

6 William Shakespeare, “Persons Represented,” TheMerchant of Venice, in The Complete Works, biography by CharlesSymmons, D.D., London: Atlantis, 1980.

7 Hermann Sinsheimer, Shylock, the History of a Character; or, TheMyth of the Jew, London: V. Gollancz, 1947.

8 J. John Gross, Shylock: A Legend and Its Legacy, New York:Simon & Schuster, 1964.

9 Martin J. Jaffe, Shylock and the Jewish Question, Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

10 I compiled a list of twenty-four substantial studiesof Shylock’s character. It would be possible, of course,to prepare an even longer list.

11 Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Nathan der Weise—Eindramatisches Gedicht in fünf Aufzügen, Leipzig: G. J. Göschen,1864. The play was first published in 1779.


The Merchant of Venice, seen as the epitome ofanti-Semitic representation, is also seen asindicative of the unforeseen, inexplicable, andunappeasable nature of hate against Jews. If theJews are hated even when they are not present,one is almost forced to admit that anti-Semitismis fed by energies that are independent of timeand space. The creation of Shylock’s character12 Ludwig Lewisohn, The Last Days of Shylock, New York and

London: Harper & Brothers, 1931.13 Ari Even Zahav, Shylock: The Jew of Venice, Tel Aviv:

Yavneh, 1947 (in Hebrew). Even-Zahav’s novel inspiredthe 1947 Yiddish performance of Maurice Schwartz, titled.[Shylock and His Daughter] קקקקקק קקק קקקק קקקקקק

14 Mark Leiren-Young, Shylock: A Play, Vancouver, BC,Canada: Anvil Press, 1996.

15 Pierre Lasry, Shylock, film, 1999.16 In his article, “The Subordinate(’s) Plot,” Frances

E. Dolan refers to an irregularity in the secondarynarrative, a narrative of subordinate characters inShakespearean drama who are often used as “comicrelief.” In the secondary narrative, the subordinatecharacters imitate the main ones, and their storyparallels, but does not affect, that of the maincharacters. In the “subordinate’s plot,” however,secondary characters enter the main narrative, affectsome of the action, and even threaten the maincharacters. Such breach of structure, claims Dolan, isoften reflective of a breach in the structure of societyas well—a social and political disturbance that existsboth on and off of the stage. The “Subordinate’s Plot,”accordingly, is the story of Caliban in The Tempest, forCaliban does not resemble other secondary characters.Unlike Malvolio in Twelfth Night, Puck in A Midsummer Night’sDream, or even Falstaff in King Henry IV, Caliban’s role isnot only to reflect the main plot by his actions—as hisplot against Prospero resembles Antonio and Sebastian’splot against Alonzo—but also to serve as a native of theisland, one whose origins are unknown and whose powersare yet to be tested. It is because of this“disturbance” that The Tempest lends itself so easily toan interpretation that sees it as a play about


at a time when few Jews lived in England ispresented by the aforementioned scholars as theultimate proof that Jews will always be dislikedby non-Jews. Anti-Semitism, in turn, ispresented, not as a social phenomenon, but as amythic entity that must govern the relationsbetween Jews and non-Jews. This argument wouldhave gone unrefuted had The Merchant of Venice trulygained its great popularity in England. Forwhile the 1594 charges against Roderigo Lopez,the Jewish physician of Queen Elizabeth, canaccount for the writing of Shakespeare’s play(as well as for Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta), onewould have to work long and hard—as JamesShapiro does in Shakespeare and the Jews—to explain a

colonialism in the New World. But although theindependence of Caliban’s character is very special, itis not unique. In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock’scharacter also disturbs the main plot, and, even morethan that of Caliban, threatens the common order whilebecoming, despite Shylock’s class, religion, andoccupation, one of the most memorable characters in theplay. See Frances E. Dolan, “The Subordinate(’s) Plot:Petty Treason and the Forms of Domestic Rebellion,”Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 43, fall 1992: 318, 328; StephenGreenblatt, “The Best Way to Kill Our LiteraryInheritance Is to Turn It into a Decorous Celebration ofthe New World Order,” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 12,1991: B1, B3; Jeffrey L. Hantman, “Caliban’s Own Voice:American Indian Views of the Other in ColonialVirginia,” New Literary History, vol. 23, winter 1992: 69–81;and Ronald Takaki, “The Tempest in the Wilderness: TheRacialization of Savagery,” The Journal of American History,vol. 79, Dec. 1992: 892–912.

17 Sinsheimer, op. cit., 17.18 Gross, op. cit., 10.19 Robert Chazan, Medieval Stereotypes and Modern Antisemitism,

University of California Press: Berkeley, 1997: 138–40.


great interest in Jewish representation in acountry which, even at this time, does not havea large Jewish population.20 One would find itdifficult to explain the great velocity ofShylock’s character, as well as thetransformation of The Merchant of Venice from acomedy with three love stories as its centraltheme, to a site of miscommunication andcontroversy between Jews and non-Jews, with thecharacter of Shylock as its uneasy protagonist.In 1955, I. E. Walter wrote a short introductionto a new edition of Schlegel and Tieck’stranslation of The Merchant of Venice. In hisintroduction, which will be quoted moreextensively at the end of this chapter, Waltersummarizes a tradition that places the characterof Shylock “in the middle of the action” of theplay:

Der “Kaufmann von Venedig” ist das Märchen vom Kampfzwischen Licht und Dunkel, Güte undMitleidlosigkeit…. In der Mitte des Geschehens stehtder Jude, die problematischste Figur des Stückes.

The Merchant of Venice is the tale of strife betweenlight and darkness, good and mercilessness…. In themiddle of the action stands the Jew, the problematicfigure of the play.21

Shylock, therefore, is not merely made to“steal the show.” His “problematic” characteroverwhelms the play with issues of ethnicity,religion, and the tension that results frominteraction between Jews and non-Jews. Theincreased interest in Shylock’s characterdemands, therefore, a number of “baffling” andunexpected interpretations of what one may


originally see as a Shakespearean comedy thatcelebrates love, friendship, and social order.Writing in “The Changing Image of the Jew:Nathan the Wise and Shylock,” Ludwig W. Kahnargues that, in Shakespeare’s play, “not justtwo religions, but two lifestyles oppose eachother.”22 This idea is developed further in arecent article by Jacques Derrida, in which he20 James Shapiro, Shakespeare and the Jews, New York:

Columbia University Press, 1996. Shapiro provides anaccount of the history of various Jewish communities inEngland, refuting the obviously overstated claim thatthere have been no Jews in England after the exile of1290. There are also those who would claim that theJewish community in England, regardless of its physicalsize, played a key role in modern Jewish history, aswell as in the general society in England. This iscertainly an argument that has merit, althoughdetermining the role that the English-Jewish populationplayed in English and Jewish history is a matter ofinterpretation. My humble opinion is that Jewish historyin England would not be sufficient to explain a greatinterest in The Merchant of Venice. And, certainly, there wasno great interest in this play in England until themiddle of the eighteenth century, a time by which it hadbeen played and referred to hundreds of times acrossnumerous German cities and towns in various localadaptations and interpretations. In her book, Shakespeareand the Politics of Culture in Late Victorian England, Linda Rozmovitzclaims that The Merchant of Venice gained a great deal ofpopularity in England in the period between the 1870s tothe 1920s as a pedagogical tool in colonial, children,and women’s education. The play, according to Rozmovitz,fitted within a contemporary discussion in the field ofeducation reform in relation with contemporary issuessuch as politics, and the status of women and Jews. Theplay was also perceived as a “safe” children’s story;Linda Rozmovitz, Shakespeare and the Politics of Culture in LateVictorian England, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1998.


described act IV, of Antonio’s trial, as adiscussion of political, monetary, and religiousconversion between two separate social systems.23

It is an unsuccessful conversion, of course, asShylock refuses the economic exchange of moneyfor Antonio’s pound of flesh, as well as theexchange of his political and religious standfor the religion and the “quality of mercy” thathis adversaries profess. By placing Shylock “inthe middle of the action,” one challenges,therefore, the sense of harmony in the play.For, as Derrida demonstrates, harmony is nottruly achieved at the end of the trial, and theplay, as far as the character of Shylock isconcerned, does not end peacefully. This, ofcourse, challenges the view of The Merchant of Veniceas a comedy, at the end of which predicamentsare averted and harmony must be restored. It iswith quite some confidence, for example, thatYiddish writer M. Zamler titles his 1929 novel,

קקקקקקקקק קקקקקקק: קקקקקקק קקקק קקקקקקקק קקקק ק

[Shylock: A Novel Based on Shakespeare’s Tragedy].24 Thereading of the play comes full circle at thispoint, as the concentration on Shylock’scharacter necessitates its final vindication,reading the play as a philo-Semitic statementabout the plight, strife, and loss of personaldignity, religious freedom, and—in some readings—even national honor.

But whether tragedy or comedy, and whetheranti-Semitic or philo-Semitic, the reading of TheMerchant of Venice in relation to its English origin

21 William Shakespeare, Shakespeares Werke, ed. Dr. I E.Walter, tr. Schlegel and Tieck, Austria: StuttgarterHausbücherei, 1955: 252–53.


places the character of Shylock not “in themiddle of the action,” but in the middle of theuniverse—as even in places where there is nodaily interaction between Jews and non-Jews, theentire world seems to revolve around “Jewishissues”: the morals, occupations, history, andpersecutions of Jews. Beyond a sense of self-importance that it may award Jewish readers,this is a frightening thought. It demands a viewof Jews as essentially different from non-Jews:For better or worse, Jews are to be set apart byan enigmatic, supernatural, and—since it seemsindependent of the Jews themselves—endlessobsession of the world with the Jewish people.

But is “the world” truly obsessed with the fateof the Jews? The interest in Shylock’scharacter, the view of the play as a text aboutthe relations between Jews and non-Jews, andeven the great popularity of The Merchant of Venicewere not established, at least during the earlystages of the play’s history, in England. AsGross writes, a 1605 performance at Whitehall isperhaps the only surviving record of aperformance of the play in England during theseventeenth century. There are no remainingrecords of English productions of the playduring the period of 1605–1642, when the Englishtheaters were still in operation, as there werecertainly no recorded performances during theperiod in which theaters were shut down. During22 Ludwig W. Kahn, “The Changing Image of the Jew:

Nathan the Wise and Shylock,” Identity and Ethos, ed. Mark H.Gelber, New York: Peter Lang, 1986: 244.


the seventeenth century, it was only fromsporadic adaptations such as The Travel of the ThreeEnglish Brothers (1607), A Challenge for Beauty (1636),and The Gentleman of Venice (1639),25 that audiencescould have some knowledge of this play. TheMerchant of Venice was not among the Shakespeareanplays that were revived after 1660, and, asGross writes, “when George Granville’sadaptation, The Jew of Venice, was first performed in1701, few members of the audience can have knownthe Shakespearean original.”26 Even during theeighteenth century, the popularity of The Merchantof Venice in England had taken a backseat to otherShakespearean plays, and it was not untilCharles Macklin’s performance as Shylock atDrury Lane on February 14, 1741, that the playhad actually gained some momentum. Macklin’sperformance was followed by a number ofacclaimed renditions by actors such as EdmundKean, Edwin Booth, Henry Irving, and others. Butthe play had never achieved in England the kindof popularity that it gained in places in whicha large Jewish population has inspired aparticular interest in the work. It is onlylogical, after all, that today, in places suchas Israel, which defines itself as a Jewishnation, there would be more interest in TheMerchant of Venice than in England. In fact, asIsraeli theater critic Boaz Evron writes, thisplay has been so popular in Israel, that it had

23 Jacques Derrida, “What Is a ‘Relevant’ Translation,”tr. Lawrence Venuti, Critical Inquiry, vol. 27, no. 2, winter2001: 174; see pages 9, 58, 170.

24 M. Zamler, Shylock, A Novel Based on Shakespeare’s Tragedy,Warsaw: Helyas, 1929 (in Yiddish).


come to hinder the production of otherShakespearean plays:

ווו ווו וווווו, ווווו ווווווו""ווווו וו וווו ווווו "ווווו", "ווווו וווו","ווווווווו", וווו וווו

"וווווווו וווווווווו", "וווווווו ווווווו", "ווווווו",ווו וווו וווו וווווו וווווווווו וו ווווו וו ווו ווו

].1922[ווווווו "וווווו"

Why is The Merchant of Venice produced in Israel alreadyfor the third time, while Coriolanus, The Tempest,Measure for Measure, Antony and Cleopatra, Troilus and Cressida,Cymbeline, and most of the historical plays were notproduced even once since the performance of HaDibukin Moscow [1922]?27

But Evron need not complain. Certainly, the“historical plays” are of more interest to theEnglish, as they are alleged to tell the storyof English history, while The Merchant of Venice isinvoked in repeated attempts to read in it astatement about Jewish history and identity. Itis for this reason that the gap between thereading of The Merchant of Venice as an inconspicuousShakespearean comedy of the late sixteenthcentury, and its late twentieth-century image ofintense drama of ethnic and national strife, istoo great to be explained by the notion thatShakespeare had a particular interest in theJewish people. Not withstanding a greatfascination with the rediscovery of the historyof Jews in England that is discussed inShapiro’s work,28 as well as in two other booksthat bear the title, Shakespeare and the Jews,29 andone book that is titled Shakespeare and the Jew,30 onemust conclude that the transformation that this


text undergoes is not to be traced back to whatChazan describes as a twelfth-century kernelthat has festered in English culture forcenturies beyond the 1290 exile of English Jews.The transformation of the play into a highlycharged and controversial drama must not betraced back then to English performances, but toplaces, times, and languages in which Jewishrepresentation has been, more so than inEngland, highly charged and controversial.

But beyond the dangerous notion in itself,that Jewish representation has a rhyme andreason, the idea that such representation, likethe play itself, can be translated over spaceand culture suggests changes that are not merelytextual. It suggests that Jewish representationis determined by human choices rather than bydivine inspiration. This is already a highlycharged religious and political notion. If therepresentation of the Jews alters over space andtime, then attitudes toward Jews—perhaps eventhe Jews themselves—may not be the same at everyplace and time. Here, the anxiety over the lossof the original, which accompanies anytranslation, is conflated with an anxiety overthe concept of an ethnic and national origin, aconcept of “original Jewry,” that defines what

25 And, of course, the 1637, 1652, 1663, and 1685 foliosof the play.

26 Gross, op. cit., 105–11.27 Boaz Evron, “Premiere Performance,” Yediot Akharonot

[daily newspaper], March 20, 1972 (in Hebrew). The 1922performance of HaDibuk in Moscow was the firstperformance of the Habima Hebrew Theater, and is oftenregarded as the beginning of the history of the modernHebrew theater.


Jews are and should be. In the same way thatShylock’s character is often thought of as theultimate symbol of Judaism, the deconstructionof his character, the demonstration of thedifferent stages that it goes through, of themultifaceted and multilingual influences thatcompose its current image, sometimes involves apainful examination of the construction of animage of modern Jewry in the last four hundredyears. The anxiety is not, as Hans-WolfgangSchneiders suggests in Die Ambivalenz des Fremden,31

over issues of fidelity, of aspects in thesource text that may be lost to readers of atranslation—but an anxiety that what is acceptedas original and faithful representation will berevealed as a construction, motivated by actualcircumstances and events. Anxiety is, therefore,not caused by what may seem as the “foreignness”of the dramatic text, but rather by contemporaryand highly pertinent issues that contextualizeits representation and reception. As ErikaFischer-Lichte claims in Soziale und theatralischeKonventionen als Problem der Dramenübersetzung [Social andTheatrical Conventions as the Problem of the DramaticTranslation], translated drama is given theopportunity to present texts as foreign, usingthe added features of costumes, scenery,movements, and accent to communicate elements of

28 Shapiro, op. cit., 62–88.29 John Wesley Hales, Shakespeare and the Jews, London:

Longmans, Green & Co., 1894; Percy Joseph Marks,Shakespeare and the Jews, [n.p.] 1916.

30 Gerald Friedlander, Shakespeare and the Jew, New York:AMS Press, 1974.


the original that are not easily translated oraccepted through language.32 But it is preciselythis fluidity that allows drama to blur theboundaries between foreign and domestic. In1972, the Israeli Cameri Theater presented aproduction of The Merchant of Venice that attemptedto present the play as “Shakespeare had meantit.” To director Yossi Izrae’li this meant thatthe play must be anti-Semitic. Using costumes ofKu Klux Klan members, and dressing his Shylockin black, Izraeli had claimed, as Alexander Popeis alleged to have written, that “this is theJew / that Shakespeare drew.”33 So long as thisrepresentation was seen as “foreign,” and wasattributed to Shakespeare’s writing rather thanto Izrae’li’s interpretation, the choices thatwere made in this production were not calledinto question. The question was not raised as towhy one may desire to present an image of anti-Semitism within the context of a homogeneousJewish society, an image which reaffirms, infact, that society’s own image of how it may berepresented by others. It is, therefore, thenotion that one must not only consider theintentions and communicative effects of a drama,but the traditions that it acquires throughrepeated translations, that suggests anexamination of the context in which a play isperformed. Annie Brisset, in “In Search of aTarget Language,” writes that translation istruly motivated by the contexts and interests ofthe target audience. The purpose of translation,claims Brisset, is not to introduce the other,but to further define the target language.34 TheMerchant of Venice, translated and transported over


space, language, and time, contains the missinglink between Shakespeare and the Jews. Thislink, which is finally seen as “inherent” or“essential” to the play, bridges over the“linguistic air” which Walter Benjamin names asthe realm in which translations take place.35 Butunlike in Benjamin’s description, this realm isanything but “high and pure.” It contains allthat has been added to The Merchant of Venice in anamalgamation of languages, ideologies,folklores, and events over time.

It is with this notion of a missing link betweenShakespeare and the Jews that my work begins. Mytask, as mentioned above, is not merely to finda missing link that would explain Shylock as aliterary character, but one that would suggestsome of the ways in which the sixteenth-centurycharacter of Shylock developed into a currentsymbol of Jewish identity that influences bothYiddish and Hebrew self-images and self-representations in literary texts, theatricalperformances, and political action to thepresent time. I discuss some of the ways inwhich Shylock’s character was reshaped bysocial, political, and even certain economicfactors, shaping, in turn, Jewish self-perception at various places and times. The“missing link,” tying a Shakespearean Shylockwith its current image, is a conversion, alinguistic and a cultural translation, which, asJacques Derrida observes in The Ear of the Other,


always entails a relationship of an “impossiblecontract”:

Translation augments and modifies the original,which, insofar as it is living on, never ceases tolive on and to grow. It modifies the original even asit also modifies the translating language. Thisprocess—transforming the original as well as thetranslation—is the translating contract…36

But, as this is an impossible contract, it isthe translation that lives and grows within whatItamar Even Zohar would name in Papers in HistoricalPoetics “the target system,” the values,traditions, and ideals of those who adapt theoriginal to their own environment.37 The story ofthe translation, adaptation, reception, and evenof the occasional celebration of The Merchant ofVenice as a philo-Semitic work is the story of thedevelopment of modern Hebrew and Yiddishliteratures in places and times in which theimage of Jews, as well as Jewish self-31 Hans-Wolfgang Schneiders, Die Ambivalenz des Fremden:

Übersetzungstheorie im Zeitalter der Aufklärung (Frankreich und Italien),Bonn: Romantischer Verlag, 1995: 10–11.

32 Erika Fischer-Lichte, et al., “Die Inszenierung derÜbersetzung als kulturelle Transformation,” Soziale undtheatralische Konventionen als Problem der Dramenübersetzung,Tübingen: Narr, 1988.

33 See page 1; I assume that Izrae’li did not try toargue that Ku Klux Klan costumes were actually writteninto Shakespeare’s manuscript, but that they representthe “spirit of the play,” as contemporary equivalents oflate sixteenth-century anti-Semitism.

34 Annie Brisset, "In Search of a Target Language: ThePolitics of Theater Translation in Quebec,” Target, 1:2,1989: 25.

35 Walter Benjamin, “The Task of the Translator,”Illuminations, tr. Harry Zohn, New York: Schocken Books,1968.


perception, were, and still are, of enormousconsequence. It is also tied, as I mentionabove, to the development of a perception ofmodern Jewry as a whole. For if one accepts thatShylock’s character is not the product of anunchanging “obsession of the world with theJews,” then its survival and development are dueto the choices of those who found the characterof “Shakespeare’s Jew” useful at differenttimes. These choices, infused by the potentialof what this character could bring to variousdiscussions of the relations between Jews andnon-Jews, portray what has been kept and addedto Shylock’s character in accordance with the“impossible contract” of translation thatDerrida describes, as well as parts that werecut off the living flesh of Shylock. Thisenigmatic character, endowed with an ability tosurvive that is not unlike the survival instinctthat is attributed to living Jews, cannot beused as proof, therefore, for the unchangingnature of Jewish representation. On thecontrary, its survival through four hundredyears of changing attitudes and myths about theJews is the proof for the construction of Jewishrepresentation, as well as self-representation.This construction is created through thecontinuous conversions of what is perhaps theworld’s most popular play about the Jews. Eachconversion is motivated, of course, by priorconversions of this text, and the entire process36 Jacques Derrida, The Ear of the Other, tr. Peggy Kamuf and

Avital Ronell, London: University of Nebraska Press,1985: 122.


must remain continuous, since, as mentionedabove, a successful conversion is rendered, inthe context of The Merchant of Venice, impossible.

It is this continuity, this relation ofcausality between consecutive stages in theinterpretation of The Merchant of Venice, which hasbeen most important in my decision to suggestGerman translations and adaptations of the playas the “missing link” between Shakespeare andthe Jews. The notion that these translations andadaptations motivated the choices that are madein subsequent interpretations of the play hastaken priority over other “supporting evidence.”Such supporting evidence would include: thegreat popularity of the play, which has beenproduced in Germany throughout the seventeenthcentury in various adaptations; the presence ofa considerable Jewish population in Germanybetween the twelfth and mid-twentieth centuries;and the stamping of this play, through earlytitles such as Von dem Juden, Der Jud von Venedig, orJosepho der Jude von Venedig, as a work thatconcentrates on Jewish representation. But it isparticularly the authority that suchrepresentation asserts within a national projectof Shakespearean translation into German thatrenders it indispensable to the process by whichThe Merchant of Venice was made into a definitive texton the interaction between Jews and non-Jews. IfShakespearean translation has contributed, asFriedrich Gundolf claims in Shakespeare und derdeutsche Geist,38 to the formation of unified

37 Itamar Even-Zohar, Papers in Historical Poetics, Tel Aviv:Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel AvivUniversity, 1978.


national German identity, then the status thatShylock is accorded within this translationproject can be regarded as the “official”proclamation of the status of Jews within suchformation. The Merchant of Venice was converted,then, not merely into a play about a Jew, butinto a national statement of how Jews are to beperceived. Naturally, later translations of TheMerchant of Venice, and of Shakespeare’s plays ingeneral, could be prepared either in agreementor disagreement with these notions, but couldnot ignore the view that translatingShakespearean plays is tantamount to a nationalstatement. This is certainly true of manyShakespearean translations into Yiddish andHebrew, which, as can be learned from D. M.Hermalin’s book, Shakespeare’s Selected Works, wereprepared with great admiration for a Germantradition:

ווווווווו וווווווו וו וווווווווו, ווו וווווווו ווו ווווו, ווווו ווו ווו ווווווו ווו וווווווווו, וווווווו ווווו, וווווו וו ווו וווווווווו וווווווו ווווווווווווו-וווו וווו וו וווו. ווו וווווו ווווו ווו וווו ווו וווווווווו

.ווו וו ווווווו ווו, וווו ווו ווווווו ווווווווו ווווו ווווו ווווו וווווו ווווווווווווו וווו ווווווווו

To study Shakespeare, and truly comprehend his work,we must direct ourselves to the original, or at leastthe famous German translation, which is almost asgood. Whether there could ever be a Yiddishtranslation such as the German, is of great doubt.39

These translations were intended to be as muchof a vehicle for national and cultural formationas the German translations are alleged to have


been. It is impossible to overstate, therefore,the significance of The Merchant of Venice within aproject of translation that has been adapted asa German model for the creation of a modernJewish culture. While some of the choices thatare made in Hebrew and Yiddish translations ofthe play are made in opposition to traditionalchoices that appear in German translations,almost all of them adopt the underlining notionthat the play must provide an authoritativestatement about the status of Jews in relationto non-Jews, accepting, in addition to a numberof interpretations that will be discussed lateron, the notion of an irrevocable differencebetween the two. The missing link between“Shakespeare and the Jews” can be found,therefore, in the traditions of Shakespeareanreception and translation into German,explaining not only the way in which The Merchantof Venice became a definitive text about therelations between Jews and non-Jews, but the wayin which the acceptance of some of the facets ofthis play has actually influenced suchrelationships.

The history of Shakespearean reception,adaptation, and translation into German is afield as vast and diverse as that of hisreception and interpretation on the Englishstage. Whether one chooses to begin the story ofShakespeare’s reception in Germany in the late

38 Friedrich Gundolf, Shakespeare und der deutsche Geist,Berlin: Georg Bondi, 1922.

39 D. M. Hermalin, Shakespeare’s Selected Works, New York: S.Druckerman, 1907: v (in Yiddish).


sixteenth century, as do Albert Cohn inShakespeare in Germany in the Sixteenth and SeventeenthCenturies,40 Johannes Meissner in Die EnglischenComoedianten,41 Friedrich Gundolf in Shakespeare undder deutsche Geist,42 and Ernest Brennecke inShakespeare in Germany 1590–1700,43 or whether oneprefers to concentrate on the rapid process ofShakespearean translations in the eighteenth andnineteenth centuries by Schlegel and Tieck, Voß,Ortlepp, Bauernfeld, Benda, Meyer, and others—asdo Hansjürgen Blinn in Shakespeare—Rezeption,Antoine Berman in The Experience of the Foreign, andMarie Joachimi-Dege in Deutsche Shakespeare-Problemeim XVIII Jahrhundert und im Zeitalter der Romantic,44 theadaptation and translation of Shakespeare’s workis repeatedly related to the development of theGerman theater, German literature, and the finalachievement of German national unity in 1871 byPrussian statesman Otto von Bismarck. Brennecke40 Albert Cohn, Shakespeare in Germany in the Sixteenth and

Seventeenth Centuries: An Account of English Actors in Germany and theNetherlands, and of the Plays Performed by Them During the Same Period,London: Asher & Co., 1865.

41 Johannes Meissner, Die Englischen Comoedianten zur ZeitShakespeares in Oesterreich, Vienna: Carl Konegen, 1884.

42 Friedrich Gundolf, op. cit.43 Ernest Brennecke, Shakespeare in Germany 1590–1700: With

Translations of Five Early Plays, Chicago: The University ofChicago Press, 1964.

44 Hansjürgen Blinn, Shakespeare, Rezeption: Die Diskussion umShakespeare in Deutschland, Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag,1982; Antoine Berman, The Experience of the Foreign: Culture andTranslation in Romantic Germany, tr. S. Heyvaert, Albany:State University of New York Press, 1992; MarieJoachimi-Dege, Deutsche Shakespeare-Probleme im XVIII Jahrhundertund im Zeitalter der Romantic, Leipzig: Haessel, 1907;Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1976.


provides in his book, in addition to thetranslation (or retranslation) of five earlyShakespearean adaptations into English, adetailed historiography of early Shakespeareanreception that is at times fascinating in itsprecision. July 19, 1585, is referred to as thefirst recorded day of Shakespearean productionin Germany, as a group of English playersperformed at the Leipzig Rathaus for a sum offive thalers. Until the beginning of the ThirtyYears War in 1618, Shakespearean drama wasperformed in English, in German courts, townsquares, and theaters, suffering, or enjoying,extreme gaps in fidelity to the original plays.The shows, mostly comedies, consisted up to the1620s of fragments, in English, followed byGerman interpretation. The interpreter was oftena clown who narrated the performances withimprovised speeches. The first clown wasSpencer, known also as Hans Leberwurst. The second,created in 1618 by Robert Reynolds, was known asPickelhering, a name that soon served as a generictitle for all the English groups.

Within this great activity, there have beennumerous productions of adaptations of TheMerchant of Venice in various locations aroundGermany (see Appendix I). The first recordedperformance was given by the John Green Companyat Passau in 1607, only two years after the lastrecorded performance of the play in Englandduring the seventeenth century. On February 14and 18 of 1608, the “English Comedians” arerecorded to have staged two adaptations of TheMerchant of Venice within the same week. Thepopularity of The Merchant of Venice can be partially


explained by a prior tradition of Jewishrepresentation. As Edith Wenzel writes in “Doworden die Judden alle geschant,” there had been a priortradition of Jewish presentation in pageantsthat tied Jews with the characters of Herod,Judas, and, finally, the devil himself:

Die Vorstellung von der Komplizenschaft der Teufelmit den Juden ist im mittelalterlichen Aberglaubentief verwurzelt. Juden gelten als Lehrmeister derSchwartzen Künste, als zauberische Ärzte oderAlchemisten, und ihre Sprache wird als Sprache derMagie in Zauberbüchen zitiert. Die weithinunterstellte Verbindung von Juden und Teufeln wirdmit dem Vorspiel des Alsfelder Spiels in diePassiongeschichte integriert, und sie geht damit indie theologische Argumentation ein.

The presentation of the complicity between the Deviland the Jews roots itself deeply in medievalsuperstition. Jews are accepted as teachers of theblack arts, as magical physicians and alchemists, andtheir language is quoted as the language of magic inspell books. The extensively suggested relationbetween Jews and devils is integrated, along with theprelude of the Alsfed plays, into the history of thepassion plays, and, with it, into theologicalargumentation.45

Certainly, this tradition already bears asocial and political significance, but it is thesecularization of this representation within aShakespearean project that enables a discussionof Jews not as theological entities but as apart of what have been the very early stages ofthe formation of a modern society and nation. In45 Edith Wenzel, “Do worden die Judden alle geschant:” Rolle und

Function der Juden in Spätmittelalterlichen Spielen, Munich: Fink,1922: 122.


Shakespeare und der deutsche Geist, Gundolf accreditsthe initial reception of Shakespearean work inGermany to three main historical processes thattook place in Europe at the time: theReformation, the emergence of a middle class,and the development of a humanist tradition.46 Herefers, therefore, to the English groups thatplayed in Germany since the end of the sixteenthcentury as initiators of an “emancipated”theater, which, after the failure of theirinitial blank verse translations, were marked by“bold” prose dialogue:

So war die Prosa-auflösung mehr eine Not als eineAbsicht. Aus dieser Not haben sie dann eine Tugend,das heißt eine Erleichterung gemacht, die freilichfür die Überlieferung des Shakespeareschen Textes umso verderblicher wurde je mehr die Komödianten selbstdabei auf ihre Rechnung kamen.

Sobald nämlich die deutsche Prosa den englischenBlankvers verdrängt hatte, war jede dichterischeBindung weggefallen und dem Improvisieren Tür und Torgeöffnet, je mehr die deutsche Sprache selbst sichzersetzte. (Beiläufig bemerkt hatte auch hier dasallumfassende Pathos des 16. Jahrhunderts eine ArtEinheit hergestellet: bei seinem Ablaufen zerfiel dasDeutsch sowohl grammatisch wie landschaftlich wiederin seine Rohstoffe.)…. Die Prosa bedeutet überall dieEmanzipation des bloßen Theaters innerhalb desDramas. Der Clown und die Clownszenen vermittelnzwischen Theater und Publikum, zwischen Wirklichkeitund Illusion.

Thus the breaking into prose was done more out ofneed than on purpose. Of this need came some benefit,or rather a relief that, while corruptive of thetradition of Shakespeare’s text, provided theopportunity for the comedians to restore themselves.

As soon as German prose ousted English blankverse, every poetic link was omitted, and the gates

46 Friedrich Gundolf, op. cit., 1–3.


and doorways of improvisation were opened as much asthe German language itself has increasinglydisintegrated. (It should be mentioned here inpassing that the general pathos of the sixteenthcentury produced a type of unity: During its periodGerman declined in its grammar as well as in itsnatural resources)…. Above all, prose meant theemancipation of the bare theater within the drama.The clown and the clown scenes mediate between thetheater and the public, reality and illusion.47

Shakespearean presentation enabled, therefore,not only the initiation of secular performancein prose, but the actual “secularization” of thedramatic text and its adaptation to local andcontemporary agenda. Accordingly, the secularrepresentation of Jews in adaptations of TheMerchant of Venice were able to address thepractical role of the Jews, not in theologicalterms in which they had been described thus far,but in relation to an economy that was becominggradually more dependent on commerce, and, inturn, more open to what Gross refers to as “theeconomic skills and international connections ofthe Jews.”48 Like other seventeenth-centuryadaptations of Shakespeare’s work into German,those of The Merchant of Venice were most likely farfrom presenting loyal, or even unanimous,renditions of Shakespeare’s work. The multitudeof names that these adaptations were given isprobably indicative of the differentinterpretations that were presented in variousproductions, as well as of their almostunanimous presentation of a play that is47 Ibid., 19–20.48 Gross, op. cit., 31–32


concerned with the story of a Jewish character.Brennecke and Meissner enumerate what seems anendless list of different titles, among whichare: Von dem Juden, Der Jud von Venedig, Jud von Venedig,Comedia von Josepho Juden von Venedick, and Von dem reichenJuden von Maltua. Meissner provides a detailedhistoriography of these adaptations, commentingon the established similarities between variousscripts, such as John Green’s 1608 production ofVon einem König von Cypren und einem Herzog von Venedigthat is supposed to be “identical” with his 1626production of Comödie von Josepho Juden von Venedig inDresden.49 In addition, the various adaptationsare said to merge a number of themes taken fromShakespeare’s play, as well as from Marlowe’s TheJew of Malta, and the less-known drama of Von demKönig aus Cypren und dem Fürsten aus Venedig. Therefore,while the various adaptations most likelypresented various degrees of interest andempathy with Jewish characters that werepresented under the alternating names of Josephoand Barabbas, they are said to share a number ofcharacteristics. One of these is thetransformation of what is alleged to beShakespeare’s secondary title of the play50 intoa primary one, turning the play into the storyof the Jew, Von dem Juden, placing Jewishrepresentation as its main theme.

The surviving seventeenth-century manuscriptthat is used for this discussion is Daswohlgesprochene Uhrtheil, oder Der Jud von Venedig [The Well49 Meissner, op. cit., 103–5. 50 Meissner mentions that the reference to the play as

The Jew of Venice can be traced back to Shakespeare’s work,as a 1598 English copy of the play is recorded with asecondary title of Jewe of Venyce; Ibid.


Spoken Judgment, or The Jew of Venice], which was preparedfor the Dresdener Hoftheater in the 1680s. It is mostlikely tied with the 1674 performance of JosephusJuden von Venedig in Dresden, and may even bear somesimilarities to Green’s 1626 Dresdenperformance, which, as we are told, is“identical” with his 1608 performance in Gratz.51

It seems, then, that while the variousadaptations of The Merchant of Venice are likely tobe different from one another in some aspects,they are not as heterogeneous as one may expect.

One noticeable characteristic of Daswohlgesprochene Uhrtheil is the large part that thecharacter of the Jew, appearing alternativelyunder the names of Joseph and Barabbas, is givenin the play. Joseph is given two soliloquies,and his character appears in each of the fiveacts of the play. The character ofJoseph/Barabbas is, in accordance with themedieval tradition which Wenzel refers to,endowed with pure, and perhaps inhuman, evil.Joseph’s first soliloquy, at the end of scene ivof Act I, reveals malice that is by no means asmoralistic or ambivalent as that of the morefamiliar Shylock:

Gieb dich Zufrieden, du Tyranischer Christ, hastumier schon meine gütter genuhmen, so Hab ich dochnoch so viel Bey mir, Banditen damit Zu kaufen, dirdein Leben dadurch Zu Benehmen, wofern ich auff keineandere Weisse an dich gerrathen kan. Vermeinestu dassJüdische geschlecht ganz auss Zu tilgen? Nein, es kannicht sein, wann man Vnssan an einen orthevertreibet, so kommen wir an ein andern testo

51 Ibid.


Heuffiger Zusahmmen. Ich werde schon wieder Zu meinengüttern gelangen, du aber wirst den Todt auss meinerHandt empfangen (abit).52

Softly, softly, you Christian tyrant; even if youhave taken all my possessions, I still have enough onmy person to hire cut throats to take your life, if Icannot get at you in any other way. Do you imagineyou will utterly destroy the Jewish race? No, thatmay not be. If we are expelled in one place, wereassemble in another, in all the greater number.

To regain my fortune I shall not fail,But you before death’s door shall quail (Exit).53

This soliloquy, compared with Shylock’s shortstatement in Act I, scene iii, of The Merchant ofVenice, reveals an unforeseen malice in relationwith Shylock’s character. While Shylock merelyprofesses his hate for Antonio and refuses toforgive him for his unkind treatment and unfaircompetition in the rialto, Joseph reveals anational conspiracy that renders himundefeatable as he pronounces a death sentenceon his rival, the prince of Cyprus. Joseph ismade invincible by plotting and trickery, which,although they do not render his conductsupernatural, award his character diaboliccunning. In Act III, the prince sends hisservant, Pickelhäring, to find a physician’sgown, which will enable him to enter the house52 William Shakespeare, Comoedia Genandt Das Wohlgesprochene

Uhrtheil—Eynes Weiblichen Studenten, oder Der Jud von Venedig,anonymous translation of The Merchant of Venice for theDresdener Hoftheater, ca. 1680, in Meissner, op. cit. I, iv.

53 William Shakespeare, Comedy Entitled The Well Spoken Judgmentof a Female Student or The Jew of Venice, tr. Ernest Brennecke(1964), in Brennecke, op. cit., I, iv. This 1964translation by Ernest Brennecke is of an anonymousGerman translation of The Merchant of Venice for theDresdener Hoftheater, circa 1680.


of his beloved. Pickelhäring goes to the placein which professional gowns, costumes, and otheroddities can be purchased. This, it seems, wouldbe the house of any Jew in Venice, as the Jewsare alleged to supply various merchandise at amoment’s notice. It is by devilish accident thatPickelhäring approaches the house of a Jew, whonot only has the desired gown, but is none otherthan the vindictive Joseph, whose cruelty isonly matched by his resourcefulness.Unrecognized by Pickelhäring, he asks him towait:

Jud: [this part is probably not heard byPickelhäring] Ich muss die Kleider nicht ansehen, wansie auch 100 Cronnen werth wehren, den dadurch kanich erlangen, wass ich begehre. Ich will hineingehenVnd des Doctors Kleid mit Starcken Gifft Bestreichen,so wird der Jenige, welcher mich auss Cypren verjagt,auch nicht wieder Lebendig in sein Landt gelangenkönnen. [to Pickelhäring:] Höre, Pickelhäring, dukanst in ein Parr Stunden wieder kommen, ich will dirVnterdessen die Kleider Zusahmen suchen.54

Jew [aside]. I must not worry about the clothes, evenif they’re worth a hundred crowns, for with them Ican gain my end. I’ll go inside and daub strongpoison on the doctor’s costume, and then he who droveme from Cyprus will never be able to reach his nativeland again. Listen, Pickelhering, you may come backin a couple of hours. Meanwhile, I’ll gather theclothes for you.55

As horrifying as Joseph’s malice may seem, oneshould notice that it is only expressed throughtrickery. Unlike Shylock, Joseph expresses his54 Shakespeare, ca. 1680, op. cit., III, v.55 Shakespeare, 1964, op. cit., III, v.


hate in two soliloquies, when no other characteris present on stage. In the quote that isprovided above, he reveals his plot to theaudience in the presence of the prince’s servantwho, even then, is not meant to hear what Josephsays. In all other instances, however, Josephaddresses the other characters with extremecivility, and at times, with flattery. The onlysignificant exception comes at the end of theplay, when Joseph, unhappy with the results ofthe trial, lashes out directly at the judge, andis, of course, beaten for it. Joseph’s bark is,therefore, worse than his bite, as his malice,trickery, and hate are dismissed unceremoniouslyat the end of the play. This quality, more thanthe malice of Joseph/Shylock, is extremelysignificant, as later translations of The Merchantof Venice express similar disbelief in the abilityof the Jew to take revenge against non-Jews.Such translations point to the physical weaknessof the Jews, and, through it, to an allegedmoral weakness, since—in the same way that goodalways triumphs over evil—various translationsand adaptations of The Merchant of Venice demonstratethe necessary triumph of Christianity overJudaism. Nevertheless, a similar notion hasbecome accepted in Yiddish and Hebrewtranslations of the play as well, as the notionthat the Jew cannot take revenge against non-Jews is translated as a moral choice rather thanphysical incapacity. For example, in Ari EvenZahav’s 1943 Hebrew novel, Shylock—The Jew of Venice,which, in 1947, inspired Maurice Schwartz’sYiddish play, Shylock and His Daughter, Shylock endsthe play by dropping his knife, and declaring


that he cannot cut Antonio’s flesh because he isa Jew.

But perhaps the most fruitful observationabout Das wohlgesprochene Uhrtheil can be made whenlooking at the second soliloquy that thecharacter of Joseph is accorded in Act III,occupying the entire third scene. The cunningJoseph travels to Venice in the company of theprince of Cyprus while disguised as a one-eyedsailor. As he arrives at his destination, heboasts in his gaining of sight, as he is nowable to use both eyes, as well as in his newappearance and identity:

Auss dem lande Cypern ward ich gejaget, ietzt gehtmirs auff dem wasser whol. Auf der reisse hatt ichnuhr ein Auge, ietz Habe ich 2, genau nach meinenVortheil Zu schauen; ich muste mich mit einenZerrissenen rock Behelffen, ietzt Habe ich Kleid,nicht allein Zur Notthurfft sondern auch Zur prachtund herligkeit. Zufor hiess ich Barabas, ietz aberhab ich den nahmen Joseph an mich genohmmen. Siehedich nur fleissig Vor, mein Printz, denn der Josephsuchet deinen Vntergang.56

I was driven from the land of Cyprus; now things gowell with me on the waters. On my journey I had butone eye; now I have two with which to look sharply tomy advantage. I had to manage with a tattered coat;now I have not only such garments as are necessary,but splendid and magnificent raiment. Formerly I wascalled Barabbas; now I have taken the name Joseph.You’d better be on guard constantly, my Prince, forJoseph is seeking your destruction.57

56 Shakespeare, ca. 1680, op. cit., III, iii. 57 Shakespeare, 1964, op. cit., III, iii.


The change of physical appearance, as the Jewis allowed to wear expensive clothes when hecomes from Cyprus to Venice, empowers the Jew tobehave like a citizen, change his name, and takerevenge against the prince of Cyprus. Thissoliloquy, which can be compared with Shylock’sspeech in The Merchant of Venice, seems tocommunicate the exact opposite of the statementthat is made in Shakespeare’s play. Shylock’sspeech asserts a complete similarity between theemotions, appearances, and abilities of Jews andnon-Jews. In Das wohlgesprochene Uhrtheil, however,the Jew, Barabbas, is limited by his appearanceand status, which he must overcome in order tostand on equal footing with his adversaries.Barabbas must also amend a certain lack ofsight, which reflects his inability to see the“true light” of Christianity. This point becomesextremely important in reading I. E. Walter’scomment, which I mention in the beginning ofthis discussion, that the Jew of The Merchant ofVenice stands “Ohne Gnade und ohne Licht [Withoutgrace and without light].” The darkness in whichthe Jew stands is a spiritual darkness, and, asis mentioned by Wenzel, is often arepresentative of the unnatural. The Jew,presented as radically different from non-Jewsin terms of appearance and sight, has almost adiabolical ability to exchange clothes,identities, and limbs. Under his assumedidentity as Joseph, Barabbas seems to havetemporarily bridged the gap of social status,external appearance, and even of sight. But asis the case with the character of Mephistophelesin Christopher Marlowe’s seventeenth-century


play, The Tragic History of the Life and Death of DoctorFaustus, the power of evil must ebb when facedwith the power of good. Joseph’s disguise—aswell as his plot against the prince—arepresented on an empty stage, endowing him with adark power that is finally curbed by the lightof Christianity, which is represented by theprince of Cyprus. Joseph’s second soliloquyexpresses, then, the exact opposite of what isexpressed in Shylock’s speech, as it combinesthe theological perception of the Jews asbearers of black magic with the social truththat European Jews have been radically differentfrom non-Jews in terms of external appearance,political status, and their ability to respondto unfair treatment. This notion had an immenseinfluence on the way in which Shylock’s speechhas been translated later on, rendering itpivotal in works of both Jewish and non-Jewishtranslators who, for various reasons, have beentranslating The Merchant of Venice with a resistanceto the notion of complete similarity betweenJews and non-Jews in terms of nationalsovereignty, physical appearance, emotionalreaction, and social behavior.

In addition to the presentation of the “Jew ofVenice” as spiritually, physically, and sociallyunequal to non-Jews, and to the undercutting ofthe notion that he can execute “the villainythat he is taught,” an important influence onlater translations is provided by the subversionof the notion of harmony and peaceful exchange.This subversion, as mentioned before, is due to


the concentration on Shylock’s character and theconversion of The Merchant of Venice into “the storyof the Jew.” In the original play, the fifth andlast act follows the aversion of a predicamentthat was brought on by Shylock, and returns towhat is the main theme of the play—theestablishment of harmony and love within a well-balanced social and natural order. In Daswohlgesprochene Uhrtheil, on the other hand, thecharacter of the Jew remains on stage throughoutthe seventh scene of the fifth act, and theaversion of the predicament that he initiatesmarks the end of the play, rendering thispredicament its main theme. In the remainingshort eighth scene, marriages are formed andnational alliances are proclaimed. However, theconcentration on the character of the Jew, whosestory does not end peacefully, subverts thesense of harmony that is essential for thereading of the play as a comedy. This notion ismade particularly pertinent in Das wohlgesprocheneUhrtheil, as the conversion of the Jew, which ispronounced at the end of the trial in The Merchantof Venice, is omitted. Religious conversion, whichsome may see as a punishment that is inflictedon Shylock, can be read as an establishment ofpeace, endowing the villain with the grace ofChristianity, and, of course, with Christianharmony and forgiveness. In Das wohlgesprocheneUhrtheil, however, there is no mention ofconversion, and Joseph is unceremoniously beatenand sent away. As there is no claim forsimilarity or quality between Jews and non-Jews,harmony is not sought and the villain is notendowed with grace. Later on, the subversion of


harmony in the play will open it up to a readingas serious drama, or even as tragedy if thepoint of view of the Jew is adopted.Interestingly, the title that John Green gave toone of his performances in Dresden in the summerof 1626, is Eine Tragödia von Barabbas, Juden von Malta.This early reference to the play as a tragedy,echoed in the title of Zamler’s 1929 novel thatis mentioned in the beginning of thisdiscussion, is indicative of the influence thatthe early German adaptations had on latertranslations and interpretations of The Merchant ofVenice. While practically absent from the Englishstage during the seventeenth century, The Merchantof Venice was translated in Germany into a tense,and perhaps even tragic, drama that deniesharmony and equality between Jews and non-Jews.This accepted inequality has been tremendouslysignificant, as mentioned before, not only forthe development of the play or Shylock’scharacter, but also to the perception and self-perception of Jews through what has beenaccepted later as an icon of Jewishrepresentation.

Since the 1620s, the English players performedmostly in German, changing their English namesto German ones, and gradually assimilatingwithin German society. The term EnglischeComödianten changed over time to HochdeutscheComödianten. After 1618, Shakespeare’s name, andeven the English source of many of the works,were lost until a Shakespearean revival in themiddle eighteenth to early nineteenth centuries,


when Shakespeare was reclaimed as an importantinfluence and addition to German literature.This second wave of Shakespearean reception,beginning shortly after the Thirty Years War, ismarked by Baron Caspar Wilhelm von Borck’s 1741translation of Julius Caesar, followed by GottholdEphraim Lessing who, in 1759, recognizedShakespeare’s significance in Briefe die neuesteLiteratur betreffend. These were followed byShakespearean translations by Wieland (1762–66),Schröder (1776), Schlegel (1797), and Eschenburg(1799). The second half of the eighteenthcentury is also marked by Shakespeareancommentary and performances. The first half ofthe nineteenth century is marked by a multitudeof translations, featuring complete series ofShakespeare’s work, by Voß (1818–29), Ortlepp(1838–39), Bauernfeld (1824), Benda (1825–26),Meyer (1824–31), and, of course, the definitive1833 collection by Schlegel and Tieck. 58

Within a specific historiography of Germantranslations of The Merchant of Venice, the beginningof a second wave of translation can be marked bythe 1776 performance of the play in Hamburg,based on a translation by Friedrich LudwigSchröder. Translations at this stage can bedistinguished from seventeenth-centuryadaptations by their greater fidelity to the

58 For a provocative discussion of the status awarded tothe Schlegel-Tieck translations, see Kenneth E. Larson,“The Origins of the ‘Schlegel-Tieck’ Shakespeare in the1820s,” The German Quarterly, winter 1987: 19–36; as well asChrista Jansohn, “The Making of a National Poet:Shakespeare, Carl Joseph Meyer, and the German Book-Market in the Nineteenth Century,” The Modern LanguageReview, vol. 90 no. 3, July 1, 1995: 545–55.


original English text, the crediting of theauthor—as well as the translator who oftenprovides notes to the translation or aninterpretation of the play—and, finally, by theadoption of the original title of the play,naming it Der Kaufmann von Venedig [The Merchant ofVenice]. Schröder’s is not the first accredited,loyal, or properly titled translation. It ispreceded by the translation of Christoph MartinWieland, which was prepared, along with thetranslation of twenty-one other plays, from 1762to 1766.59 But Schröder’s work is particularlyindicative of the passage from what one mayrefer to as an adaptation stage to that of a“scientifically correct” translation in thespirit of the eighteenth century. Schröderpublished two different translations of TheMerchant of Venice. The year in which Schröder’stranslation was first performed in Hamburg isreferred to by John Gross and by Elmar Goerden60

as 1777. The two translations that were foundfor this project, however, were printed inVienna, and are dated to 1791 and 1804.61 Theyare most likely later editions of Schröder’s


earlier translations, and the title of the 1804edition indicates that it has been “Für dasHamburger Theater bearbeitet [adapted for theHamburg Theater].” It was at some point after1777, therefore, that the theater demandedchanges in the translation that would render itcloser to the original play. The 1791 edition isparticularly interesting, as it reflects anintermediary stage between adaptation andtranslation. It already bears the characteristicof a “legitimate” translation: It is accredited;it follows with relative fidelity the plot andtext of the original play; and it is titled, DerKaufmann von Venedig. It is also reminiscent,however, of prior adaptations of the playthrough a number of characteristics: As the 1791edition contains only four acts, it conflatesthe end of the play with the end of the trialscene, turning the play into “Shylock’s story.”The choice of turning The Merchant of Venice into aplay of four acts, even more so than that ofleaving the character of the Jew on stagethrough the fifth act, is indicative of theextent to which all that follows Shylock’s storyis seen as superfluous to the needs andinterests of the translator and the audience. Infact, the choice of four, rather than five, actsis preserved in a number of Yiddish adaptations,such as the 1925 performance at B. Elving’stheater, which is titled: וווווווו וווו—וווווווו

ווו וווווווו וווווווו ווו ווו ווו 4ווו —ווו ווווו [Shylock—The Merchant of Venice or The Jew in Exile—in

Four Acts]. The Merchant of Venice, therefore, seen as aplay about the life of the Jews in the Diaspora,is naturally reduced to the four acts that make


up the story of the Jew. Similarly, aseventeenth-century characteristic that is keptin the 1791 edition, and appears in laterYiddish adaptations as well, is the enlargementof Shylock’s role and the creation of monologuesfor his character. The 1791 edition preservesthe first soliloquy that the character of Josephis allowed in Das wohlgesprochene Uhrtheil, asShylock’s proclamation of his hate towardAntonio is delivered on an empty stage at thebeginning of scene iii of Act I. Shylock’sspeech, which is delivered to Salanio andSolarino, is awarded additional significance asit is placed at the very end of the second act.Finally, the threat that Shylock poses in theplay is undercut in both speeches, rendering itimpractical, and even comic. At the end ofShylock’s soliloquy, in which he professes hishate to Antonio, Shylock stops in mid-sentence,uttering, “Do kömt er [here he comes],”manifesting his inability to challenge hisadversaries directly. Similarly, his secondspeech, which is followed in the original playwith some conversation, and Salanio’s anti-Semitic remark that is directed toward Tubal’sentrance, is responded to by Solarino in a moreconsolatory fashion: “Shylock! Shylock! Laßt mitEuch reden [Shylock! Shylock! Let someone talkwith you].”

As mentioned before, the 1791 edition alsoincludes some of the choices that characterizethe second phase in the translation of the playinto German. One of these choices, which alters


the original text, cannot be repeated in later,more precise translations. Nevertheless, it isindicative of the spirit in which lateeighteenth- and nineteenth-century translationswere prepared. In Shylock’s speech, a questionmark is added to his statement that Antoniomistreats him because of his religion:

Und warum das alles? Weil ich ein Jude bin? —Hat ein Judekeine Augen?

And what is the reason for all that? That I am a Jew? —Does a Jew have no eyes?62

Schröder turns Shylock’s statement into aquestion, providing some doubt as to whetherShylock’s religion is either a legitimate, oreven likely, cause for Antonio’s conduct. Thisis one of a number of choices that are meant topacify the character of Shylock, and to reducethe tension that accompanies the play in earlieradaptations. The fragment, “If a Christian wronga Jew,” is translated in the 1791 edition,63 as59 The Wieland edition includes prose translations of

twenty-one Shakespearean plays, and a translation of AMidsummer Night’s Dream in verse. Johann Joachim Eschenburgrevised and supplemented the Wieland edition in 1775,and published his own translation of The Merchant of Venicein 1799.

60 Elmar Goerden, “Der Andere. Fragmente einerBühnengeschichte Shylocks im deutschen und englischenTheater des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts,” Theatralia Judaica—Emanzipation und Antisemitismus als Momente der Theatergeschichte. vonder Lessing-Zeit bis zur Shoah, ed. Hans-Peter Bayerdörfer,Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1992.

61 William Shakespeare, Der Kaufmann von Venedig, tr.Friedrich Ludwig Schröder, Vienna, 1791; WilliamShakespeare, Der Kaufmann von Venedig, tr. Friedrich LudwigSchröder, Vienna: J. B. Wallishausser, 1804.

62 Shakespeare 1791, op. cit., Act II; my italics.


“Wenn ein Christ einen Juden beleidigt [When aChristian insults a Jew].”64 As in Schröder’s choiceof substituting a question mark for a period,his substitution of the word “wrong” with“insult” renders Shylock’s statement lessabsolute. While the choice of “wrong,” appearingin the 1954 translation of Richard Flatter as“Unrecht tut [does injustice to],” implies adiscussion of fair treatment, which can bemeasured in objective terms, the choice of“insult,” is a term that is subjective, and opento interpretation. One can strive legitimatelyto rectify unjust treatment through legal means.However, Shylock’s character cannot enjoy thesame legitimacy when he is alleged to seekvengeance for a mere “insult,” a term which doesnot have a legal definition. As Elmar Goerdenexplains in “Der Andere—Fragmente einerBühnengeschichte Shylocks im deutschen undenglischen Theater des 18. und 19.Jahrhunderts,” by the end of the eighteenthcentury there was a certain discomfort with theblatant anti-Semitic representation of Shylock’scharacter in the past. Therefore, the characterof Shylock, as well as the “wrongs” and“insults” that he must endure, are pacified invarious ways. In a prologue to a 1788performance of Schröder’s translation in Berlin,the following apology was extended:

Nun das kluge Berlin die Glaubensgenossen des weisenMendelssohn höher zu schätzen anfängt, nun wir beidiesemVolke…Männer sehen,gleich groß in Wissenschaften und Künsten,


wollen wir nun dies Volk durch Spott betrüben, demaltenungerechten Haß mehr Nahrung geben [?]…Nein, das wollen wir nicht.

As wise Berlin began to evaluate more highly thereligious convictions of the wise Mendelssohn, we seeamong these people… ones equally great in thesciences and the arts. [Do] we wish to make a mockeryof this people, give more nourishment to the old andunjust hate [?.]... No, we do not wish to do so.65

Goerden claims that this has merely been acosmetic change, as the character of Shylock,played by Iffland, was dressed in a “grotesque”blue caftan that caricatured traditional Jewishclothing, and spoke in a manner that wasstereotypically Jewish. One may note, at anyrate, certain sensitivity to the appearance ofanti-Semitism that marked the passage fromblatant anti-Semitic representation to one thatis subtler.

It is in this atmosphere that Gotthold EphraimLessing published his play, Nathan the Wise, in1779. The character of Nathan, which is writtenin opposition to that of Shylock, is avindication of the Jewish businessman who, inthis work, is kind, generous, educated, and

63 As well as in a number of following translations,such as those of Schlegel, Eschenburg, Meyer, Wieland,and Benda.

64 Shakespeare 1791, op. cit., Act II; my italics65 Goerden, op. cit., 137. Goerden quotes from J. B.

König, Annalen der Juden in den preußischen Staaten, besonders in derMark Brandenburg, Berlin: J. F. Unger, 1790: 329. Theconflation of the question mark that is inserted inSchröder’s translation with the one that is inserted inthe above text is interesting.


tolerant of all religions equally. Writing in“The Changing Image of the Jew: Nathan the Wiseand Shylock,” Ludwig W. Kahn argues that Nathanis required to “shed his Jewish idiosyncrasies,”and to “surrender his Jewishness” in order tomeet with Lessing’s approval:

For hundreds of years after Lessing and down to ourown day, Nathan was a canonical text of tolerance,and a great source of self-respect and pride for manyJews who accorded Nathan a place of honor on theirbookshelves and in their hearts. Assimilation was thewatchword of ninettenth-century Jewry, and Nathan,anxious to tone down Jewish distinctions anddifferences, could serve as the prototype ofassimilation…. But today we must take a second lookat Lessing’s advocacy for tolerance. For one thing,Lessing neither is, nor should be, tolerant of anti-humanism, superstition, or intolerance. Furthermore,does not tolerance imply the accepting of theotherness, the separateness, and uniqueness of theJew? And, in this respect Nathan is less than aperfect exemplar; remember his concession to theTemplar: “Disdain my folk as much as you will!”66

Kahn does not suggest that Lessing is anti-Semitic, but speaks of a nineteenth-centuryhumanist ideal that attempts to contain thetension and discomfort of anti-Semitism within avision that sets aside all religions andtraditions. It is, therefore, not with overtanti-Semitism that the 1788 Berlin performanceis put together, for, as mentioned in the66 Ludwig W. Kahn, op. cit., 241. The line, “Disdain my

folk as much as you will!” appears in Act V, line 11, inwhich Nathan suggests to the Templar that the two ofthem “must” be friends, despite the insignificant factthat they follow different religions.


apology that precedes the play, it is notintended to offend the educated, “cultured,” andassimilated Jews who are “equally great in thesciences and the arts,” since they, too, wouldpresumably reject their own religious and“superstitious” heritage.

It is with the same levelheaded approach thatJohann Joachim Eschenburg’s 1799 translation ofthe play is published along with a discussion ofthe historical “cruelty of the Jew”:

Die Geschichte von der Grausamkeit des Juden ist einesehr alte, und lange vor Shakespeare verschiedentlicherzählte Geschichte, wie wir bald sehen werden.

The history of the cruelty of the Jew is an old one,and is told in various historical accounts longbefore Shakespeare’s time, as we will soon see.67

Eschenburg presents a fascinating discussionin which he mentions and translates a number ofsources that tell similar stories to that of TheMerchant of Venice, some of which, such as theItalian il Pecorone, may have actually inspiredShakespeare’s work, while others do notnecessarily precede The Merchant of Venice. SinceEschenburg speaks of the “cruelty of the Jew” inthe singular, his “scientifically objective”essay does not argue openly that all Jews arecruel. This issue, in fact, is never raised, andEschenburg merely allows “objective facts” tospeak for themselves, while conflating therepresentation of “the Jew” with the “cruelty of

67 William Shakspeare [sic], Schauspiele, tr. JohannJoachim Eschenburg, Zürich: Drell, Füßli, und Compagnie,1799, vol. 3: 518.


the Jew,” a single character, and yet one ofmany names, places, and times.

This “scientifically objective” approachaccounts for what is perhaps one of the mostsurprising choices that have been made in thetranslation of Shylock’s speech into German. Inhis 1797 translation of The Merchant of Venice,August Wilhelm Schlegel translates Shylock’sclaim that Jews have eyes, hands, organs, anddimensions similar to those of non-Jews, in thefollowing manner:

Hat nicht ein Jude Augen? Hat nicht ein Jude Hände,Gliedmaßen, Werkzeuge…

Has a Jew no eyes? Has a Jew no hands, limbs, tools…68

The replacement of “organs” or “dimensions” with“Werkzeuge” is not entirely invalid. The GrimmDictionary of German Etymologies mentions that theLatin word for utensils, instrumentum, is usedboth in the sense of “tools” and of “limbs.”69

One of the derivative meanings of Werkzeuge islisted, therefore, as “limbs,” with Schlegel’sabove translation of Shylock’s speech as one ofthe examples for this usage. But whether or notWerkzeuge can mean “limbs,” or even “dimensions,”it is not an obvious choice. In fact, it isrepeated only once, in Johann Wilhelm OttoBenda’s 1825 translation of the play. But if onewishes to interpret this choice as an attempt todehumanize the Jews by awarding them with68 Shakespeare 1955, op. cit., Act III, i; my italics. 69 Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch, Leipzig:

S. Hirzel, 1960, vol. 29: 419–26.


machinelike, rather than human, characteristics,one may find the appendix to Benda’s translationsurprising:

Weniger fürchterlich erscheint unter solchenUmständen der an sich verabscheuungswürdige HaßScheiloks, wenn man bemerkt, daß er doch nicht ganzunbegründet ist.

Shylock’s despicable hate appears less monstrous ifone takes into account that it is not entirelygroundless.70

Benda attempts to explain the paradox ofShylock’s character, describing him as

Kein gewöhnlicher, und doch ganz Jude. Ein Mann vonnicht gemeinem Verstande, und einer in seiner Artseltnen Geistesbildung.

Not ordinary, and yet quite Jewish; a man of nosimple intellect, and one of the rare spiritualeducation of his breed. 71

According to Benda, Shylock is limited by thetradition and history of his people, whose hatefor Christians has been kindled by unfairtreatment. Such hate, “despicable” and yet notentirely unfounded, does not contradict thehumanity, individualism, and even intellect ofShylock. And yet, the Jew is depicted inSchlegel and Benda’s translations as bearing“tools” rather than “organs” or “dimensions.”Perhaps Schlegel has merely taken theopportunity to enrich the German language with a

70 William Shakespeare, Der Kaufmann von Venedig, tr. JohannWilhelm Otto Benda, Leipzig: Georg Joachim Güschen,1825–6: 162.

71 Ibid.


grammatical form that is taken from a classicallanguage. This small homage may have been leftfor linguists, such as the editors of the GrimmDictionary of German Etymologies, who are able toexplain the interesting choice of Werkzeuge. Atany rate, this is a choice that is made bySchlegel and Benda, not with overt anti-Semitism, but for the purpose of precision: TheJews are said to have limbs similar to those ofChristians to the extent that they can be usedas utensils, to move objects, lift them, putthem down, or break them apart. But they are notstretched out with Christian charity, sprinkledwith holy water, or used to kneel down inprayer. This, as Benda explains, is a differencethat is created through history and tradition,rather than individual malice.72

Nonetheless, despite a humanist tradition thatpresents all men and women as equal beyond the“strings” of religion, the eighteenth- andnineteenth-century German translations of TheMerchant of Venice reverse the message in Act III,scene i, of complete similarity between Jews andnon-Jews in terms of national existence,physical appearance, emotional reaction, andsocial behavior. Schlegel and Benda’s choice ofWerkzeuge—much like that of Eschenburg, who, intranslating the list of qualities that the Jewspossess, simply neglects to offer a term for theoriginal “dimensions”—highlights the fact thatthe appearance of Jews and Christians has been—and in some cases, still is—radically different72 Ibid.


as the result of fashion, lifestyle, andintermarriage which preserve geneticcharacteristics. Another interesting variationon Shylock’s speech that is offered by Schlegelconcerns the social status of the Jews, andtheir ability to behave in the same manner thatChristians might. In the last sentence, “and it[revenge] shall go hard, but I will better theinstruction,” Schlegel interprets Shakespeare'suse of the word “but” as an archaic form thatmeans “or” or “or else,” translating: “es mußschlimm hergehen, oder…”73 The implication isthat “should revenge not prove hard enough atfirst, I will, nevertheless, better theinstruction.” The act of revenge is thereforerepresented as difficult to accomplish,necessitating a special effort on the part ofthe Jewish speaker. The significance of thisminute variation is of highlighting theambiguity of the original sentence: With whom isShylock’s revenge destined to “go hard”? Will itprove bitter and unbearable for Antonio? Or isShylock, as is indeed the case at the end ofAntonio’s trial, destined to pay a high pricefor his revenge?

This variation is one of several other subtlechoices that echo the notion of seventeenth-century translations of the play that the Jewsare, at bottom line, unable to inflict malice onnon-Jews. However, unlike seventeenth-centurytranslations and adaptations, such variationsare not allowed to divert from the original textto a great extent. They are, rather, achieved73 This choice is repeated in Richard Flatter’s 1954

translation: “Und hart müßt’ es hergehn, oder…”


through subtle choices that highlight some ofthe ambiguities and complications that the textallows. One choice that is repeated in all ofthe German translations that were read for thisstudy has to do with Shylock’s declaration thatthe Jews resemble Christians in their ability totake revenge:

“If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble youin that [revenge]”74

While different translators use differentsentence structures and dictions, all choose totranslate the word “will,” as “wollen.” Followingis Schlegel’s version:

Sind wir euch in allen Dingen ähnlich, so wollen wir’seuch auch darin gleich tun.

[As] we are similar to you in all things, so we wouldlike to act similarly to you in that.75

The verb wollen in German can mean “intend” or“claim.” However, although it leaves a space forthe original meaning of “will,” it is, more sothan werden, indicative of the notion that, forEuropean Jews, revenge was more often a wishthan a reality. Similarly, using varioussynonyms, the last word in Shylock’s speech,“instruction” (“but I will better theinstruction”), is repeatedly replaced with“instructor” (Schlegel: Meistern; Eschenburg:Lehrmeister, Benda: Lehrer, etc.). In doing so, the Jewis placed within a position of weakness in74 Shakespeare 1980, op. cit., III, i.75 Shakespeare 1955, op. cit., III, i.


relation with an instructor (and a master),presenting Jewish revenge, despite the expressstatement in this passage, as quite differentfrom Gentile revenge, which is executed from aposition of power.

In addition, since no Jewish community, up to1948, existed as a modern state, differenttranslations take different approaches inrepeating Shylock’s use of the word “nation” inreference to the Jews. A great number of thetranslators replace Shakespeare’s “nation” withVolk. Again, this is a choice that stays verycarefully within the bounds of the originaltext. The German cognate, Nation, primarily means“nation”: a political entity limited by borders,government, and common law. “Volk,” however,means “nation,” as well as “people,” “masses,”“crowd,” “bunch,” and even “plebs,” “mob,” and“rabble.”76 Most importantly, however, Volkconnotes a people that share a common traditionand culture, wehreas Nation implies only anational entity that does not necessarily bringpeople together through a common culture.Certainly, in the nineteenth century,characterized by German nationalism, as well aspolitical feuds, treaties, and the finalunification of the German states, these choicesare of enormous significance. Unlike thereference to the Jews as “race” in theseventeenth-century adaptation, Das wohlgesprocheneUhrtheil (“Vermeinestu dass Jüdische geschlecht ganzauss Zu tilgen [Do you imagine you will utterlydestroy the Jewish race]?”), the use of Volk76 Sonia Brough, New College German Dictionary, New York:

Langenscheidt, 1995.


allows the reference to the Jews as a unifiedgroup of people with common culture and ethicsthat can be defined, assessed, and challenged.It allows, therefore, for Benda’s discussion inhis appendix of Shylock’s “Art seltnen Geistesbildung[the rare spiritual education of his breed],” aswell as Kahn’s observation that, inShakespeare’s play, “not just two religions, buttwo life styles oppose each other,”77 and, ofcourse, Derrida’s notion that Antonio’s trialincludes a discussion of political, monetary,and religious conversion between two distinctsemiotic systems. The Jews, therefore, must bedescribed in German translations as Volk, ratherthan Geschlecht, Art, Stamm [origin], Religion, oreven Nation,78 if they are to be defined withinthe national project of Shakespeareantranslation. As is mentioned before,Shakespearean translations into German arealleged to have made a significant contributionto the formation of a national German culture.Within this project, the Merchant of Venice can onlybe thought of as a national statement about theJews as Volk, one of several that may compose anation.

This is not to say, of course, that the Jewsare represented in these translations like anyother Volk, such as Prussians, Austrians, Danes,Bavarians, and so on. The eighteenth- andnineteenth-century translators of the Merchant ofVenice were presented with the challenge of77 Ludwig W. Kahn, op. cit., 244.78 Although, the word “Nation” is used in the translations

of Wieland and Eschenburg.


bridging the gap between seventeenth-centuryadaptations, which presented blatant anti-Semitism as well as superstitious beliefs in the“satanic” powers of the Jews, and an impossiblefidelity to the English original, which demandsthe denial of physical and social differencesbetween Jews and non-Jews. The balance betweenthese extremities is maintained through minutevariations on the original, which curb themalice that is inflicted on Shylock and rendersimilarities and equality between Jews and non-Jews ambivalent. As mentioned before, I. E.Walter’s introduction to the 1955 edition ofSchlegel and Tieck’s translation of the Merchant ofVenice demonstrates the extent to which thenineteenth-century deconstruction of harmony inthe play has rendered Shylock, and the relationbetween Jews and non-Jews, a major theme of theplay. An extended quotation from Walter’sintroduction to The Merchant of Venice provides anextremely interesting demonstration of ahumanist reading that maintains certain earlier,seventeenth-century interpretations of the playwhile turning away from blatant anti-Semitismand superstition:

Der “Kaufmann von Venedig” ist das Märchen vom Kampfzwischen Licht und Dunkel, Güte undMitleidlosigkeit…. In der Mitte des Geschehens stehtder Jude, die problematischste Figur des Stückes. Manhat in das Lustspiel Absichten und Ideenhineingedeutet, die dem Dichter sicherlichfernlagen…. Eine Judenfrage gab es im England des 16.Jahrhunderts überhaupt nicht, und es lag Shakespearebestimmt fern, sie mit seinem Stück aufzuwerfen.Shylocks Judentum ist wie Othellos schwarze Farbenicht so sehr Kennzeichen von Rasse oder Stand,sondern deutlich sichtbarer Ausdruck des


Andersartigen, Ausländischen. Das Judentum bot demDichter nur die eindringliche äußere Form für denausgestoßenen, unterdrückten, gedemütigten Fremdling,den Menschen ohne Gnade und ohne Licht.

The Merchant of Venice is the tale of strife betweenlight and darkness, good and mercilessness…. In themiddle of the action stands the Jew, the problematicfigure of the play. One has alleged intentions andideas to the play that were surely far from thepoet’s mind…. There was no “Jewish question” inEngland of the sixteenth century, and it was trulynot Shakespeare’s intention to raise it in his work.Shylock’s Judaism, like Othello’s black color, is notso much a mark of race or status, but a clearexpression of the other, the foreign. The poetoffered Judaism only as the emphatic external form ofthe outcast, oppressed, humbled stranger, a personwithout grace and without light.79

Walter presents some impressive footwork. Hedefends the play against charges of anti-Semitism as he claims that Shakespeare did notintend it as a play about “a Jewish question,”yet he successfully places the Jew “in themiddle of the action.” And as this contradictionis settled by the claim that the Jew appears,not as a Jew, but merely as a representative of“darkness” and “mercilessness,” Waltersuccessfully preserves the seventeenth-centurynotion that Jews are teachers of the black arts,magical physicians, and accomplices of thedevil. Walter reaffirms Shakespeare’segalitarian notions, as he suggests thatShylock’s Judaism is not a mark of race orstatus. It is only, as he suggests, that the

79 Shakespeare 1955, op. cit., 252–53.


Jews represent the “emphatic external form ofthe outcast” in the play. It is, therefore, notonly as representation of spiritual “darkness”that the Jew appears in the play, but of“emphatic” external appearance that renders himan “other.” Finally, the Jew, described as an“outcast, oppressed, humbled stranger,” isplaced within a power relation that subjugateshim to non-Jews.

Walter’s short introduction demonstrates themain changes that The Merchant of Venice hadundergone through German translations andadaptations. Shylock is seen as the maincharacter in the play, which is read as a dramaabout the relations between Jews and non-Jews.In contrast with the original play, Jews arepresented as physically, emotionally, andspiritually different from non-Jews (an“emphatic external form of the outcast”).Finally, their social status and their abilityto take revenge against non-Jews are contested.After the eighteenth century, the blatant anti-Semitism of prior adaptations is curbed, eitherby appendixes and introductions such as those ofEschenburg and Benda, or by reducing thepoignancy of the malice that is directed againstShylock. With the notions that Shylock is not“wronged,” but merely “insulted,” or that hismisfortune is not inflicted on him because ofhis Judaism, Shylock is awarded with particularmalice, which, as is demonstrated in Walter’sintroduction, is used to maintain a certainplayful relation with earlier beliefs that theJews are representatives of unnatural evil.


Further German translations, adaptations, andperformances of The Merchant of Venice were produced,of course, during the late nineteenth andtwentieth centuries. Many of these translationsand performances had a significant and sometimesdirect influence on Yiddish and Hebrewtranslations and adaptations. Perhaps the mostimportant German performances are those directedby Jewish director Max Reinhardt from the turnof the century and up to the 1930s. To Jewishaudiences, the work of actor Rudolf Schildkraut,who played Shylock under Reinhardt’s direction,is of enormous significance as he transportedthe German traditions of reading The Merchant ofVenice to the United States and the Yiddishtheater when he immigrated in 1912. As late as1978, a German adaptation entitled, Ich wollte meineTochter läge tot zu meinen Füßen und hätte die Juwelen in denOhren [“I would my daughter were dead at my foot,and the jewels in her ear”], bears strongconnections to a 1972 production of The Merchant ofVenice in Israel, as both used puppets, swastikas,Ku Klux Klan costumes, and other props toconfront the anti-Semitic themes of the play.These and other translations and performancesare discussed in the following chapters.However, by the time that Joseph Bovshover’sYiddish translation of The Merchant of Venice waspublished in 1899, there was already a distinctGerman tradition of reading, translating, andperforming the play that Bovshover—and those whofollow him—respond to by accepting, rejecting,and negotiating various elements of this


tradition. In the next chapter, I discuss notonly the social and historical ties of Yiddishand Hebrew critics and translators with Germantraditions, but the reasons that compelled themto accept what, at first glance, seems anentirely negative representation, rendering theJews with essential physical weakness,distinctive appearance, social and politicalestrangement, and even a certain tendency forblack magic. While conducting the research forthis study, my expectation was that Jewishcritics and translators would offer brand-newreadings of The Merchant of Venice. I expected thatwhile the German translators of the play denyJews, through their adaptation of Shylock’scharacter, emotional, political, and physicalequality with non-Jews, this would be rectifiedin Yiddish and Hebrew translations of the play,reclaiming the equality of Jews to non-Jews, andhence their right for fair treatment. As Idemonstrate in the following chapters, this isnot the case. European Jews, who were distancedfrom civil life as well as from positions ofpower in European society, often accepted suchsegregation through popular and Cabalistic mythsthat equate social and political weakness in thereal world with spiritual achievements, and evenwith supernatural powers to bring forthsalvation in the form of a Jewish Messiah. Theinsistence on highlighting the differencesbetween Jews and non-Jews is used, therefore,not only as a means for social and politicalself-definition, but as a belief in supernaturalpowers that, as in the popular tale of theGolem,80 promise protection from non-Jews, and


even long-awaited revenge. This principle isexplained well in a recent popular book that waspublished in Israel under the title, Messiah’sDonkey. Author Seffi Rachlevsky writes:

,ווו וווו ווווו ווו ווווו ווווווו וווו ווווו ווווו,ווווו—וווווו ווווווווו ווווו וו ווווו ווווווו וווווווו,, וווווו וווווו וווווו וו וווווו ווו וווו ווווו

. וווו ווווו ווווו וווווו ווווווו, וווווו

Because of the strong ties between the persecution ofthe Jews and the creation of the Cabala, andparticularly its acceptance as an explanation forcontemporary queries and plights—the comfort,implied in the spiritual supremacy of Jews toinferior non-Jews, proceeded, deepened, and rooteditself within a Cabalistic interpretation ofJudaism.81

The perception of Jews as physically,emotionally, and politically different from non-Jews has finally been accepted by Jewishscholars and writers who, even in the modernJewish literature of the late nineteenth andearly twentieth century, wished to maintainacute differences between Jews and non-Jews interms of appearance, political activity, and, ofcourse, the willingness and opportunity of Jews

80 The of Prague is the hero of a Jewish (Golem) וווו folk tale. The story is associated with Rabbi YehudaLiva ben Bezale'l, who lived in Prague during thesixteenth century. According to the story, the Rabbicreated a dummy that rose up to life whenever theexplicit name of God was whispered in its ear. In theservice of the Rabbi, the powerful Golem repeatedlysaved the Jews from their non-Jewish enemies.

81 Seffi Rachlevsky, Messiah’s Donkey, Israel: YediotHakharonot, 1998: 104 (in Hebrew).


to engage in violence and revenge. Ludwig Kahn,who tries to explain the preference of Jewishwriters and spectators of the tortured andmaligned character of Shylock over that of thebenign and praiseworthy Nathan of Lessing’splay, sees it as a choice of segregation and“militant awareness” at the expense of ahumanist tradition that has been proven false,not only by the subconscious misgivings of theworks of Schröder, Schlegel, Eschenburg, Benda,and of course, Lessing himself, but by Jewishsuffering, and, later, the Holocaust:

Shylock and Nathan have not changed, but ourperception of them has—the self-image of the Jew haschanged. We may look back nostalgically to a timewhen we could identify with Nathan rather than withShylock, with noble humanness rather than with Jewishmilitancy. Perhaps it is one of our tragedies thatthe realities of the world have limited ouroptions.82

The Merchant of Venice is described here again as atragedy. This time, however, it is not thetragedy of a character, but that of a people. Apeople which, in the face of atrocities andinjustice, could only find comfort in theredefined character of Shylock, a Jew whosephysical and social weakness justify his maliceand wish for revenge, and whose alleged powersof black magic are interpreted as the spiritualpowers of Cabala, a text that foretells thedestruction of non-Jews, as well as of Jews whoare unfaithful to their Jewish identity, anidentity of “Jewish militancy.”

82 Ludwig W. Kahn, op. cit., 249.


But the most significant part of Kahn’sthoughts has to do with the notion of historicalchoice and circumstance that have determined thereading of The Merchant of Venice, as well as thesignificance that it is given in the formationof modern Jewish literature, culture, andidentity. These choices and circumstances,having little to do with Shakespeare’s initialefforts, are not determined by an enigmatic andconstant force of global anti-Semitism, but bythe changing representations and circumstancesof Jews, and in places and times, such asGermany during the sixteenth to mid-twentiethcentury, in which Jewish representation wasgiven social, political, and historicalsignificance. In the following chapters, I willdiscuss some of the ways in which theinterpretation of The Merchant of Venice has beenaltered further by Yiddish and Hebrewtranslators, writers, performers, and audiences,in the creations of modern Yiddish and Hebrewliteratures. These, in turn, have beeninfluenced by various social and historicalcircumstances, and, interestingly, hadtremendous repercussions during a time in whichliterary choices have been tantamount to harshsocial, political, and historical decisions.

NOTES

‘Scorned my Nation:’ A Comparison of Translations of The Merchant of Venice into German, Hebrew,...

Documents

Transcript of ‘Scorned my Nation:’ A Comparison of Translations of The Merchant of Venice into German, Hebrew,...