by Michael MacLeod

I first encountered Shakespeare sometime during the ninth grade by reading Romeo and Juliet for English class and the language, from some 400 years before our own time, eluded me at first. I floundered in comprehending the text on even a basic level and my saving grace was that the edition of the play that we had been given featured the original text on the right page, while the left page boasted a plain text version in modern English. I must admit that I read mainly from the left page and found it to be an utterly invaluable resource. The text of Shakespeare's plays is a frequent obstacle for first time readers, not only are they written in a style that is a significant departure from modern prose, but the plays are also written for performance in a distinctly bare bones style, lacking anything beyond dialogue and very simple stage directions. Modern editions of Shakespeare's plays frequently attempt to make the text more accessible by adding elements such as footnotes, references, translations of obscure phrases, and even critical essays in the back of the book. While these elements can be quite helpful, these sorts of notes necessarily adopt a critical stance that alters the presentation of the plays and can even influence how they are read. This paper will be examining three separate 20th century editions of The Merchant of Venice, one of Shakespeare's most controversial and politically charged plays, with these editions dating from 1923, 1955, and finally 1998, each offering a different framing of the play text. By examining the introductions and critical essays included in the printings, this paper will show that in their efforts to clarify Shakespeare's play, the various printings adapt the play at the same time that they reproduce it.

New historicism is a school of critical thought which emerged in the 1980's and seeks to understand works of art by looking at their original cultural context. What was in the zeitgeist of the time and location it was written in, what works and popular philosophies influenced it, looking at the piece as a product of its environment. New historicism tends to be singularly important when discussing the often controversial The Merchant of Venice.

Each of the three volumes features footnotes, which are the most obvious influence to the perceptions and interpretations of readers. While introductions and appendices are easily, and realistically, frequently, skipped by many readers, footnotes share page space with the original text and offer invaluable insight into elements which may not be clear to the readers. Because they are so tied into the text they can not only greatly colour reader's initial interpretations, but the exact choices made regarding the footnotes, what is and is not explained in them and how it is explained, says a great deal about the book itself, especially regarding two key passages: Shylock's “Hath not a Jew eyes?” speech from act 3 scene 1, and the courtroom climax in act 4 scene 1.

The 1923 Yale edition of The Merchant of Venice is notable chiefly for the sparseness of its footnotes. Overall the Yale footnotes mainly allow the text to speak for itself and assume a certain level of education in its readership. The 1955 Arden edition takes a different tack with its footnotes, and goes into a great deal of depth explaining the play. Not only are these footnotes comprehensive in translating words, but they offer elaboration on certain points and make reference to established critical work. The footnotes offer a simple translation, but also includes the elaboration provided by an academic and suggests an interpretation of how the line ought to be read or performed. The footnotes of this text are very much involved in a scholarly discourse, actively remarking on pieces of the text and offering interpretations throughout, and are unconcerned with preserving an untainted reading experience. This indicates that the intended audience is assumed to be already familiar with the text, or that they should be actively taught while reading so as to ensure the interpretation intended by the editor.

The 1998 Signet version offers still another approach in its footnotes. These footnotes offer not only the simple translations which are the standard, but also explanations of some of the references made, though these explanations notably do not offer speculation on why these references are made or what they are supposed to mean. This text is concerned with making sure that its readers can understand the proceedings and is as accessible as possible, but consciously avoids offering much critical interpretation that could colour how readers understand the text.

What we can see by looking at the footnotes of each edition is that they all suggest different things about the text and the intentions of each edition. The Yale edition assumes an educated audience who will need little clarification and primarily lets the text speak for itself. The Arden edition assumes that its audience is either already familiar with the text or is open to accepting an interpretation as they read. The Signet version is very focused on clarity and accessibility, mostly avoiding commentary so that a general audience may read it and draw their own conclusions.

While footnotes have the most obvious impact on the initial reading experience, the extras are where the intention of an edition really comes through, and even the most dry of them ultimately offer some perspective. One thing to be considered here is where the extras appear in the book, how central they are to the edition, and the extent to which they encourage experiencing the play differently.

The Yale version is once again notable for being relatively bare bones, the text of the edition begins with the play itself and it is only in the following appendices where further context or interpretation is provided. The obvious effect is that these sections are not strictly necessary to the reading experience, and as they come after the play they will not affect the initial reading, assuming a chronological reading order. There are extras in this edition though, in Appendix A, concerning the sources of the play. Noteworthy aspects are the line “The Jew story is a common one in all European literatures.”[i] which loosely suggests a cultural context of antisemitism to be considered when looking at the play, and the comparison to Christopher Marlowe's The Jew of Malta which states that Shakespeare's Shylock is chiefly different from Barabas in that he is characterized as a human being rather than a simple villain.[ii] This appendix ends by stating that “It is absurd to suppose that Shakespeare intended Shylock to be a hero, or to carry the sympathy of the audience; on the other hand, Shakespeare was not writing anti-Semitic propaganda”[iii] encouraging a reading of Shylock as a multifaceted character rather than a mere comic villain or an irredeemable monster. While this edition is relatively sparse in what it offers to the readership in terms of interpretation it does still encourage a tonally serious interpretation of the play and its most well known character.

The Arden edition is much more open about colouring the readers' view and actively encourages a particular interpretation of the text. The introduction is not only quite lengthy, but as an introduction it appears before the play text itself, to be read before the play so that readers will read it through the intended lens. It includes what is identified as a “Critical Introduction”[iv] which forms the lengthiest part of the introduction and is openly geared towards telling readers how the play and its characters are to be interpreted, with primary focus on framing Shylock as a multidimensional character who is worthy of the sympathy of the audience. Direct and lengthy mention is made to the historical context of the play, downplaying the antisemitic sentiment of Shakespeare's England, calling “a latent rather than an active religious or social thought”[v] This introduction emphasizes that Shylock is not merely portrayed as evil because he is Jewish, arguing that there are relatively few slurs directed entirely at Jewish people[vi] and that Shylock's profession as a usurer would have been a much more relevant and unforgivable point of villain for Shakespeare's audience.[vii] Shylock is also noted to be not a simple comic villain in the text itself, as even in his more humorous moments “Many of his speeches are so phrased that they can be said in the theatre without any humour, simply as cries of anguish.”[viii] which is to say that they can be read or performed in a completely serious and non-humorous fashion. This introduction as focused on two things; characterizing Shylock as sympathetic, and establishing that the play itself is not written to be antisemitic, even going so far as to note that the play must not be read in the light of “partisan predispositions.”[vix]

Finally we come to the Signet version, which offers 65 full pages of critical commentary to 100 pages of play text. Once again, however, the priority of the Signet version seems to be clarity, as while there are many pages of critical analysis, they are mostly presented after the play text itself. The bulk of the pages preceding the play are instead focused on explaining the mechanics of the Shakespearean stage, and the differences between Shakespeare's English and modern English, with an eye towards making the text accessible to readers. There is an introduction prepared by the editor, but it is relatively evenhanded and also directly mentions the spectre of the Holocaust and Shylock's frequent modern portrayal as a sympathetic main character.[x] This introduction also makes mention of new critical methods such as gender theory[xi] and emphasizes the way in which our own cultural context is very different from that of the original play.[xii] While the editor writes about the play with obvious affection, they are sure to make mention of modern developments, establishing a theme of changing critical approaches to the play.

The additional commentaries are where the edition truly begins to offer a specific interpretation of the play, and though these commentaries are by several different authors and offer several different perspectives, they largely serve to create a portrait of a multifaceted Shylock. The first essay by Nicholas Rowe acknowledges that while Shylock can be interpreted and quite effectively performed as a comic character, he “cannot but think it was designed tragically by the author.”[xiii] The next essay by William Hazlitt frames Shylock as an admirable Renaissance man in spite of his villainy,[xiv] and argues that the rest of the cast is largely unsympathetic.[xv] Shylock is said to be a very flexible character, but Hazlitt clearly favours a sympathetic interpretation. The essay by Elmer Edgar Stoll is something of an early outlier; drawing heavily on the school of new historicism in noting that there was still substantial antisemitic feeling in Shakespeare's England and Shakespeare would have written to accommodate that.[xvi] Stoll argues that modern readers assume too much irony in Shakespeare's writing, whereas Shakespeare tended to be, in colloquial terms, about as subtle as a punch in the face.[xvii] Stoll suggests looking at The Merchant of Venice as a product of its own time, and believes that readers too often allow their own sensibilities to seep into their assumptions about Shakespeare's intent.

The final essay, and thus the final word from this edition, is provided by Sylvan Barnett, who argues for the flexibility of Shylock's character. Barnett outlines four main schools for the interpretation of Shylock as a character; “(1) a comic figure ... (2) a titanic, diabolical figure; (3) a tragic figure, a hero brought low ... (4) a composite figure.”[xviii] and goes on to discuss historical portrayals of the character. Barnett constructs a loose timeline suggesting that the character of Shylock has evolved over time through these four interpretations, from a silly villain to a serious one, and then a to a victim, and finally to a character in the modern day who can embody all of these things in the span of a single production. Overall the Signet version replicates the usual focus on Shylock but makes an effort to present more than a single perspective on the character, and even incorporates new approaches. The general tenor of the edition does tend to frame Shylock as a sympathetic character, though not strictly a victim, and argues that this characterization is one that has emerged over time.

The extras of each edition serve to provide a synopsis of concerns regarding each version of the play, and their individual agendas. The Yale edition is largely to the point and dry, primarily focused on replicating and presenting the play text with as little interference as possible. The Arden edition is focused on having the play be read a certain way. The final version from Signet features a great many critical perspectives, but saves them for after the play itself. It is primarily concerned with giving the readers a solid introduction that can help them understand the play, and only later does it offer any critical engagement. Though it does tend toward a sympathetic framing of Shylock, it is not nearly so concerned as the Arden version is with framing Shylock as a character who was originally created to be complex and sympathetic.

When looking over these editions in relation to each other, certain themes become apparent, not only the evolving critical interpretations of The Merchant of Venice, but also the democratization of knowledge. The 1923 Yale edition presents it as a simple and unproblematic text, and assumes its audiences can understand and interpret without aid. The 1955 Arden edition is extremely focused on being understood in the intended way and assuring its readers that the text is not antisemitic, endeavouring to influence the ways in which people engage critically with the play. Though it features a more modern perspective than that of the Yale edition, the Arden edition is actively concerned with heading off new critical takes on the play. The 1998 Signet edition is focused on being accessible to a wider audience, as well as confronting that while Shylock is readable as a sympathetic character, there are still troubling aspects of the play, bringing in new critical perspectives on the play. These editions form a timeline of how people have engaged with The Merchant of Venice throughout the twentieth century. By examining the many variations of the play, not only is Shakespeare’s work better illuminated, but also the culture and context of the time in which the play was reproduced.

References

i. William Lyon Phelps, “Appendix A,” The Merchant of Venice , ed. William Lyon Phelps (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923), 106.

ii. Ibid., 107.

iii. Ibid., 110.

iv John Russell Brown, “Introduction,” The Merchant of Venice , ed. John Russell Brown (London: Methuen, 1955), xxxviilviii.

v. Ibid., xxxvii.

vi. Ibid., xxxix.

vii. Ibid., xliv.

viii. Ibid., xlii.

vix. Ibid., xxxvii

x. Kenneth Myrick, “Introduction,” The Merchant of Venice , ed Kenneth Myrick (New York: Signet Classic, 1998), xliii.

xi. Ibid., lxv.

xii. Ibid., lxvii.

xiii. Nicholas Rowe, The Works of Mr. William Shakespeare rpt. in The Merchant of Venice , ed Kenneth Myrick (New York:Signet Classic, 1998), 109.

xiv. William Hazlitt, “The Characters of Shakespeare's Plays,” The Merchant of Venice , ed Kenneth Myrick (New York:Signet Classic, 1998), 112.

xv. Ibid., 113

xvi. Elmer Edgar Stoll, Shylock rpt. in The Merchant of Venice , ed Kenneth Myrick (New York: Signet Classic, 1998), 124-125.

xvii. Ibid., 129.

xiii. Sylvan Barnett, “The Merchant of Venice on Stage and Screen,” The Merchant of Venice , ed Kenneth Myrick (New York: Signet Classic, 1998), 161-162.

Bilbiography

Barnett, Sylvan. “The Merchant of Venice on Stage and Screen.” In The Merchant of Venice. Ed. Kenneth Myrick, 160-173. New York: Signet Classic, 1998.

Brown, John Russell. “Introduction.” The Merchant of Venice. Ed. John Russell Brown,xi-lviii. London: Methuen, 1955.

Hazlitt, William. “Characters of Shakespeare's Plays.” In The Merchant of Venice. Ed. Kenneth Myrick, 110-115. New York: Signet Classic, 1998.

Myrick, Kenneth. “Introduction.” The Merchant of Venice. Ed. Kenneth Myrick, lxiii-lxxxi. New York: Signet Classic, 1998.

Phelps, William Lyon. “Appendix A.” The Merchant of Venice. Ed. William Lyon Phelps, 106- 110. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923.

Rowe, Nicholas. The Works of Mr. William Shakespeare Rpt. In The Merchant of Venice. Ed. Kenneth Myrick, 109. New York: Signet Classic, 1998.

Stoll, Elmer Edgar. Shylock Rpt. In The Merchant of Venice. Ed. Kenneth Myrick, 121-136. New York: Signet Classic, 1998.