The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-02-13
OUR sHAKESPEARIAN CRITICS.

The dramatic critics of Camp street favored
the public on Sunday morning with some
startling commentaries on Shakespeares
Merchant Of Venice"
The Times announced II MS a tragedy" and
then proceeded to eonsign Shakespeare and
Barrett to one common gnominy Shake
speare for making of Shylock "wantcn and
wicked caricature Of the Jew" and Barrett for
not improving on the creators conception by
"softening tho false and ignoble lines that
Shakespeare drew" This ID d sad spectacle =
Shakespeare and Barrett done to death by u
critic who calls tho Merchant Of venice' u
tragedy"
On the other hand, the Pic not only asserts
that the play is u comedy. but vouchsafes us
the curious information that, In Shakespeare's
day, "Shylock was acted by commedians." A
comic Shylock is certainly the masterpiece Of
the improvement on Shakespeare, and must
be awarded the palm. even above those the
critic Of the Times suggests. But we regret
to say that the happy conceit was not original
with the Pic, though the assertion that
Shakespeare SO intended the character to be-
interpreted, certainly is Mrs Inchbaldo' In
her edition Of the "Acted Drama makes
mention of some such arrangement of the
Merchant OF Venice by Lansdown. Says
she: "The Jew of Venice, by Lord Lansdown.
Is an alteration Of the play, and was acted In
IDOL
The noble author made some emendations
in the work but having made The Je,c d comic
character. us such he caused more laughter
than detestation, which wholly destroyed The
moral designed by the original author.
The Merchant Of Venice" of the stage,
even now. Is by no means the play Of
Shakespeare, but Macklin put down Lans-
down, and we are at least saved the igno-
Knight justly observes of the stage-play, cit
Is, with green-room propriety. accommodated
to the taste of The company In The sfde-boxes,'
by the omission Of a great deal that IL highest
In It's poetry
OF Mr.. Barrett's Shylock we do not propose
to speak; but, had we not seen him and Only
read the complaint of the Times that he re-
fused TO modify" the false and ignoble
lines that Shakespeare drew and thus re-
deem the caricat,re," we should be disposed
to believe him a correct and conscientious
artist But THAT Mr.. Barrett has any such
ofAhe character Of Shylock as that
presented by this impudent critic, who talks
80 gibly Of Shakespeares "undying dis
honor or that he ever SO portrayedit Is alb
surdly impossible To admit that the merest
ranter that ever sawed the air, much less
Mr.. Barrett, who had studied this character,
even though no more than he must have don
to enable him TO speak his lines, could have
failed 80 utterly to read Alright the moral OF
the play, involves an imputation Of the hum
blest human intelligence so notifying as to
compel US to assert that this critic either has
not read the play or else he has, in SO SLAM
lering IL, committed that crime he charges
upon Shakespeare, Of pandering to a popular
prejudice from Interested motives However
This may be, the assertion that the MERCHANT
of Venice was written essentially upon an
ntolerant principle would be Islander on the
part Of any other than the critic who calls the
play tragedy.
We hardly deem 1t necessary to enter into
III elaborate disquisition in order to show
what monstrous distortion the Times has
made Of Shylock, or wheren the motive that
led to the creation Of the character was. not
lscredtable. The briefest outline of the play
will accomplish both purposes, and to this we
shall connc ourselves. There is no denying,
md no one has ever denied, that Shakespeare
seized upon the prejudces of the multitude
and dealt with them Us foregone conclusion.
BY which tho whole dramatic action Of the
play was to he governed" But this is all
hat can be said and we submit that
there is a vast difference between this and
4,>
camor of the London rabble' Had he failed
to do this, had he made the debtor and creditor
81 the Same faith, he would hlve lost the most
powerful hold the subject possessed upon an
audience Of his day; aye, he would have done
more. he would have destroyed the whole in
terest of the truly dramatic subject of the for
fciture Of the bond. Yet, whilst he did seize
upon these preiudices and use them for
dramatic effect, III, refused to do more
and the play constantly oatfords the
fullest evidence of an intention, carried out
with a marvellous and subtle power of making
these preiudices not less hateful than the cru
city and revenge of which theyowereethe cause.
Upon this point Mr.. Knight says. commenting
upon the views of DR.. Ulrici, with reference
to the idea In which this drama is conceived
eve are of the opinion that, although Shake
speare might not have proposed to himself 50
systematic display Of the contest that Is I'M
remittingly going forward in the world be-
tween our conventional and our natural being
he did intend to represent the anomalies that
have always existed between the circumstan-
ces by which human agents are surrounded,
and the higher motives by which they should
act And this idea, as it appears to US, is the