[Mamzelle]

Having studied the play a few times--I can't argue that MoV is not antisemitic. It is.

On the other hand, I always found Shylock the most delightful of Shakespeare's creations--so vital, so alive, so passionate--as opposed to the prating Portia or the insipid Jessica (Shylock's daughter). Found myself rooting for the pound of flesh--thought the old fart had it coming.

So, I guess there are all kinds of ways to look at things...

[Verginius Rufus]

I haven't read the play since I had to for a class in high school, but I once ran across a book by a Jewish author (maybe a rabbi) in the 1930s (I don't recall the author's name) arguing that the play is not anti-Semitic. It could be argued that Shakespeare is presenting anti-Semitism as wrong, but I haven't studied the text to see if that can be supported.

Shylock calls the judge a second Daniel. That alludes to the story of Susannah and the elders, which the Reformers relegated to the Apocrypha (since it's not in the Hebrew Bible)...Shakespeare evidently could expect his audience to be familiar with it anyway.