Purely Commentary
By - PHILIP SLOMOVITZ
The Shylock Issue: Troubles on Many Fronts
Ever since the Stratford Shakespearean Festival Corporation
committed the blunder of reviving "The Merchant of Venice," there-
by rendering irreparable harm to the Jewish people, the Shylock
issue has been kept aflame in all English-speaking countries.
The most recent report that the play will be shown to children
in Toronto and other Ontario schools is especially disturbing.
When this commentator discussed the problem last June, in,
Stratford, Ontario, with the director of the play, Tyrone Guthrie,
the Irish stage expert, who has been to Israel and who informed
us that Habimah had invited him to produce "The Merchant of
Venice" there, made the claim that in England the Shylock issue
l "Merchant" is taught in
is not an issue at all; that Shakespeare' s
all schools there; that it is accepted as a normal part of school
curricula. We are yet to _hear from the Jews of England on the
subject. Is it possible that they have stopped protesting—just be-
cause the world's most anti-Semitic play happened to be written by
the worlds' greatest dramatist?
As we have stated at the outset, the Shylock issue is aflame.
The London Jewish Chronicle in Australia, for example, reported
from Sydney as follows:
Anxiety has been expressed in Jewish and non-Jewish circles
here at the portrayal of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice by
Robert Helpmann and the Old Vic Company, which is touring the
country. It is telt that the portrayal may produce anti-Semitism.
Mr. Helpmann said in a broadcast interview that on the ad-
vice of the Habimah Theater he had adopted what he considered
to be a manner of speaking which was at once Jewish and digni-
fied. His costume had been designed to lend the greatest dignity
to the part. A programme note, he said, stated that "Shakespeare
brought out the dignity and character of Shylock as the victim of
the prejudice of his age. Only the genii's of Shakespeare could
rise above his time and write that defense of the human quality
of the Jew. . .
"Shylock towers above his enemies: he dominates the play,
and even though balked of his revenge he gains the sympathy
of his hearers."
The center of dispute, however, appears to be in Canada.
Writing in the Toronto Telegram, the highly-respected columnist,
Frank Tumpane, (he calls his column "Sincerely Yours") recently
expressed the following views, when he was aroused to anger by
the announcement that the "Merchant" was invading Toronto's
schools: _
The Merchant of Venice, by William Shakespeare, is the
most . blatantly anti-Jewish piece of writing ever to attain great-
ness in the English language.
That is what is known as a forthright statement. And I'm
not prepared to back up an inch from it, either.
The Merchant of Venice has been a cause of controversy in
these parts in recent months. First, it was produced at Stratford
at the Shakespearian Festival. Then it was produced by the
Earle Grey Players in Toronto. Now it will be produced by the
Earle Grey company for school children in Toronto and other
Ontario centers.
Each time that the play has been criticized as spieA-dini
"aliti-Seniffi.sm, its defenders have recoiled as if their own virtue
were being impugned, and I'm tired of them and their woozy
thinking. _
Why don't they just say instead: "Sure, it's anti-Semitic
but the good of its value as literature outweighs the evil of its
anti-Semitism. Therefore it ought to be produced."
If they said that they mightn't be right, but at least they'd
be honest.
Millions who have never read The Merchant of Venice or
seen it produced are aware of Shylock. What does he epitomize?
He epitomizes Jewish infamy—the most sordid, cringing, usuri-
ous, revengeful type of infamy.
Shylock is a villain whose name has become a synonym
for villainy and a particular Jewish type of villainy at that.
What's the _point of trying to shut your eyes to that? The fact
that. Shakespeare was a genius cannot change it. In fact, it un-
derlines it. If Shakespeare had been a hack, Shylock would
never have endured.
Offhand, I can think of only one other monster in English
literature who has impressed himself upon the public conscious-
ness to the same degree as Shylock. And that is Simon Legree.
But the difference in effect is this: Legree may give a dis-
torted impression of southern slave-owners but there are no
longer any southern slave-owners.
There are, however, still plenty of Jews.
And the contention that Jews shouldn't object to Shyloek
because the Scots do not object to Macbeth, for example, is
completely specious. Let me put it less politely than that. It's•
illogical bunk.
Shylock has one magnificent passage in the play, the one
beginning: "I am a Jew. Bath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew
eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affec-
tions, passions?"
This passage is always trotted out by those seeking to
escape the anti-Semitism of the play and held up as proof that
Shakespeare intended to show that Jews are the same as any-
body else.
But it won't hold up. It is overpowered by what goes be-
fore and what goes after. The Christians, freed from the mons-
trous revenge propoled by Shylock, react shamefully, it is true.
But what of Shylock?
The court strips him of half his fortune and what does he
do to save the other half? He abandons his own faith and agrees
to turn Christian. In other words, a Jew will do anything for
money.
Shakespeare, that great architect of the English language,
has done his share to keep anti-semitism alive for the past 300
years. And The Merchant of Venice is a great play—a great,
anti-Semitic play.
We are grateful to Frank Tumpane for having spoken. It is
well that he, as a respected Christian writer, should have spoken.
But we can't leave it to the Christians—although it is, indeed, one
of their major responsibilities to erase the sin called anti-Semitism.
"The Merchant of Venice" is anti-Semitic and we cannot sit back
and applaud a few lines that happen to raise a cry for justice. (In
Stratford, Ontario, that voice—by the refugee Jewish actor Fred-
erick Valk—was so weak that it not only did not make an im-
pression but thereby magnified the harm to Jewry).
And so, an old issue has flared up to plague us. Perhaps it is
rood that it has arisen again. It may end the timidity of some Jews
0 have failed to protest against the play. If we forget to protest,
= lose a powerful weapon for the right. If Shylock's reappearance
_ies our tongues,.some good may come out of the sad mess created
_ „
- _
the xeviyal_of_.the "Merchant."
-
-
The Saga of Anti-Zionist Sir Ronald Storrs-
Britain's First Governor of Jerusalem Loved
Hebrew; Apology Stopped Histadrut Libel Suit
The death of Sir Ronald Storrs,
Governor of Jerusalem from 1917
to 1926, in the early years of
British Mandatory rule, in a Lon-
don (England) hospital, on Nov.
1, at the age of 73, revives in-
terest in a very controversial
figure in Jewish history.
T. E. Lawrence of Arabia, who
gave Sir Ronald credit for hav-
ing started the Revolt in the
Desert, which made Lawrence
famous in the World War I pe-
riod, called Storrs "the most bril-
liant man in the Near East."
A scholar and a linguist, son
of a Dean of the Church of Eng-
land, Storrs mastered many lan-
guages; including Hebrew and
Arabic.
In his "Memoirs," published
in 1937, Storrs declared him-
self to be a "lover of Hebrew."
In his nationally syndicated
"Purely Commentary" column,
on Oct. 22, 1937, the editor of
The Jewish News related this
story:
"When the late Jacob Miller,
who was the first director of
the Judea Life Insurance Co.,
in Palestine, returned from
Eretz Israel, he brought with
him innumerable stories, and
related interesting experiences.
One of the stories which has
stuck with us was an experi-
ence he had with Sir Ronald
Storrs, governor of Jerusalem.
Miller had an audience with the
famous governor, and he com-
menced to speak to him in
- whereupon the learned
governor reminded him where
he was and with a shrewd
shake of the finger warned
him: 'Miller, atah b'Eretz Is-
rael! Daber Ivrit, Miller, Daber
Ivrit!'"
But That did not make Storrs
a friend of Zionism. He followed
the British Colonialists' policies
of "divide and rule," of playing
both sides when dealing with
Jews and Arabs, of. an antagon-
ism to Zionism. He loved Hebrew
but his policies were h _ urtful to
the Hebraists.
However, he loved Jerusalem,
and he said so in his "Memoirs."
There is a significant line in that
book in which he declares, "there
is no promotion after Jerusalem,"
—that's how much he valued his
post in the Holy City. "For me,"
he wrote, "Jerusalem stood and
stands alone among the cities of
the world."
In 1943, Storrs wrote a series
of -articles on the Near East.. He
was harsh in his treatment of
Zionism. The Jewish News' Com-
mentator then wrote two col-
umns on the subject of "Storrs
and Zionism" and exposed his
attempt to denude the Zionist
movement of all its effectiveness.
He gave Sir Ronald full credit
for his idealistic love of Hebrew,
pointed out that he can not be
called an anti-Semite and
warned: "But with such a
weapon in his hands he is dead-
lier than others in his advocacy
of policies _that may restrict our
progress in Palestine."
The Jewish News Commenta-
tor's second syndicated column
in the series (April 30, 1943) ex-
posed an evident attempt on the
part of the British to transform
the Jewish "home" into a mu-
seum. That column follows:
THE "CHILLY" BRIT/SHERS
The British are known to be cold
and calculating. They can be sweet
as sugar in their coldness, especially
when dealing with the Jews.
`Betrayal" has become an ordinary
word in reference to British dealings
with Jews in Palestine. It is most un-
fortunate that this should be necessary
in our direst hour of need.
But the British remain calm and col-
lected and their official utterances are
full of diabetic expressions of sym-
pathy.
Nevertheless, when necessary, they
can be very harsh and oft-times
brutal.
Take the brilliant Sir Ronald Storrs,
the first British Military Governor of
Jerusalem as an example, and you will
know what we mean.
HIS MUCH-WORN CLICHES
A column back this Commentator
discussed Sir Ronald's views on the
Jews and his love for Hebrew.
Sir Ronald, as a subject in himself,
is worth a volume as thick as his
"Memoirs." But his attitude on Pales-
tine and Zionism is certainly worth at
least two of our columns—for our own
sakes, so that we - may understand him.
Sir Ronald has done a lot of talking
about the "half-promised land" and
the "twice-promised land." These are
cliches that are undeserving of the
eminence of this brilliant statesman.
Unfortunately they represent British
attitude.
A "LOVER" OF JERUSALEM
We have mentioned his "Memoirs"
and we call the attention of our read-
ers to the chapter on Palestine in
which he expresses affection for Jeru-
salem. The page- on which he deals
with Jerusalem is entitled "If I Forget
Thee, 0 Jerusalem," and the best ex-
planation he offers for this love for
the Holy City is contained in these
wordS:
"Persons of wider aesthetic experi-
ence and more facile emotions have
often come there to pray and gone
away to mock. For me Jerusalem stood
and stands among the cities of the
world. There are many positions of
greater authority and renown within
and without the British Empire, but in
a sense I cannot explain there is no
promotion after Jerusalem." •
Wherein lies the explanation? Is it
possible that Sir Roland Storrs belongs
to those who love the ruins of Jeru-
salem and are unable to tolerate Jew-
ish aspirations for a redeemed and
speedily reconstructed Zion — includ-
ing Jerusalem?
THEY WANT A MUSEUM!
Your Commentator fears that the
reason for the obstacles and hin-
drances placed in the path of Jewish
aspirations in Palestine; the cause for
restrictions on Jewish immigration;
the refusal of the British to co-oper-
ate — are due to a desire on the part
of our British "friends" to see Pales-
tine perpetuated as a museum.
But Jews aim to make Palestine a
thriving Commonwealth where men
and women and children in untold
numbers will be able to find a home.
An uninterrupted battle is on between
the two viewpoints.
There is no compromise between
"museum" and "home." What Israel
needs is the scrapping of museums and
the building of homes. When there
is ample room for human beings, then
we shall help create glass casings for
"curiosities."
Storrs' articles in the London
Sunday Times, written in March
of 1943, contained libels against
the Histadrut and Solel Boneh.•
He and the newspaper were chal-
lenged, the General Jewish Fed-
eration of Labor of Palestine
sued for libel, and on Feb. 28,
1944, the London Times, in its
own name and in that of Sir
Ronald Storrs, apologized to
Histadrut, acknowledged the
"friendly way" in which Hista-
drut and. Solel Boneh agreed to
withdraw the suit upon apology,
and stated: "We have been
pleased to indemnify them with
respect to expenses incurred."
The Sunday London Times'
statement declared, after ex-
pressing regret that they had
given offense to the Palestirie
Jewish Labor movement:
"Sir Ronald Storrs assures us
that he had no intention of re-
flecting on the great work done
by these two bodies in develop-
ing industrial and agricultural
activities in Palestine, and the
help they have given the war
effort. Sir Ronald Storrs has re-
read the articles and agrees that
they may be liable to the con-
struction which was placed upon
them (by the litigants). He re-
grets this the more, because he
has always maintained and mani-
fested friendly and sympathetic
feelings for the Jewish cultural
and industrial developments in
Palestine and realizes the out-
standing part played by the His-
tadrut in this achievement."
The Sunday Times associated
itself with these regrets and with
the apology.
Between You and Me
By BORIS SMOLAR
(Copyright, 1955, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Inc.).
Mission to Israel
There is no war panic in Israel at present, but there is a good
deal of anxiety and determination .. . Members of the government
tell you that war can break within three months, three weeks, or
three days . . . They hope for the best, but they feel that the
country must be_prepared for the worst . .'. - Since Israel will not be
the country which declares the war, they really do not know when
war will be forced upon them .. . However, they consider it their
duty to keep the people on the alert to the imminence of war .. .
The average man on the street is very well aware that should war
break out, it will be far not the same as the War for Liberation ..
This time it will be a war of destruction and annihilation since
Egypt is being provided with bombers, jets and other modern arms
by the Communist countries . . The average Israeli is also aware
that Iraq, too, is well provided with modern arms by the United
States and that Jordan is being equipped by Britain with the same
types of weapons . . . Hence, an Arab-Israel war today would not
be of the same primitive nature as the one of 1948 . . . Neverthe-
less, the people of Israel go about their daily work as usual with
the determination to fight if fighting becomes necessary . . . This
determination is expressed in the spontaneous mass contributions
to Israel's Defense Fund . . . The nation is united behind the gov-
ernment in any emergency call for a total war . . . Some are of
the opinion that Egypt—the strongest of the Arab countries—
would not dare to provoke a war with Israel, at least for the next
six months . . . They consider that the only way to prevent such
a war is by either strongly arming Israel, or concluding an Amer-
ican-Israel security pact, or both • . .
UJA Action
The. Israelis do not expect American Jews to help them finan-
cially to increase their military strength . . . This they will do
through financial sacrifices of their own . . However, they defi-
nitely expect American Jewry to come forward with increased aid
for the economic and agricultural development of the country now
that a good part of the country's budget must be diverted for de-
fense purposes ... They feel that they are entitled to greater and
immediate aid from American Jewry, if Israel is to admit and
absorb this year 45,000 Jews from Morocco and Tunis where the
Jewish population lives in fear of pogroms . , . And, whether Israel
faces war or not this year, this number of immigrants will be ad-
mitted to the Jewish State . . . Today, there are twice as many
Jews in North Africa who seek immediate immigration to Israel ...
It is much safer for them to be in Israel, even when the Jewish.
State might be -involved in a war than to remain in Morocco or
Tunis ... The request by Israel for increased American Jewish aid
to meet this emergency situation was recognized as justified by the
United Jewish Appeal Study Mission which just visited Israel .. .
Eye-Witness Report
The Study Mission was greatly impressed with the achieve-
ments it saw in Israel . . It was even more impressed with the
drive toward greater achievements ... There were among the mem-
bers of the misson some Jewish leaders who had visited Israel only
a year ago . . . They were in a position to evaluate the progress
made by Israel during the year' ... And they came to the conclu-
sion that Israel deserves all the aid it gets from the Jews in this
country, since it makes the maximum use of such aid for the benefit
of many thousands of newcomers The mission visited various
sections of Israel from one end of the country to the other and had
very important meetings with members of the Israel government
. The report which the mission will bring to the November emer-
gency conferences in New York will, therefore, be the first eye-
witness report of top American Jewish leaders who saw Israel de-
termined to continue with the peaceful development of the country
despite the menace of war clouds ... In addition to Warburg, Rosen-
wald and Rabbi Friedman, the mission included the Detroiters
Max J. Zivian, Max M. Fisher and Samuel H. Rubiner, key figures
2 — DETROIT JEWISH NEWS in, American JewiSh life, and Isidore Sobeloff; executive director of
. , •
Friday, November 11,4955
Detroit's Jewish-Welfare Federation.- -