Changes

Shakespeare's treatment of Shylock was not so much propaganda as a case of making the subject fit an already widespread perception of how a Jewish money-lender would act. Officially, at the time of writing the play, there were no Jews in England except the odd [[Iberian Peninsular|Iberian]] keeping a very low profile, so there was no reason, really, for propaganda. The Bard's treatment of [[Richard III]] is far closer to the mark as propaganda. Indeed, most of his Histories have a decidedly anti-[[Yorkist|York]], pro-[[Duchy of Lancaster|Lancaster]] flavour - in keeping with the [[Tudor]] sovereigns who had popped up out of the Lancastrian side of the [[Wars of the Roses]]. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:09, 6 November 2012 (EST)

Shakespeare's treatment of Shylock was not so much propaganda as a case of making the subject fit an already widespread perception of how a Jewish money-lender would act. Officially, at the time of writing the play, there were no Jews in England except the odd [[Iberian Peninsular|Iberian]] keeping a very low profile, so there was no reason, really, for propaganda. The Bard's treatment of [[Richard III]] is far closer to the mark as propaganda. Indeed, most of his Histories have a decidedly anti-[[Yorkist|York]], pro-[[Duchy of Lancaster|Lancaster]] flavour - in keeping with the [[Tudor]] sovereigns who had popped up out of the Lancastrian side of the [[Wars of the Roses]]. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:09, 6 November 2012 (EST)

::I agree.  As distasteful as it is (and it really gobsmacked me when I saw the play for the first time a year or so ago) it is not propaganda by any stretch of the imagination.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:23, 6 November 2012 (EST)

::I agree.  As distasteful as it is (and it really gobsmacked me when I saw the play for the first time a year or so ago) it is not propaganda by any stretch of the imagination.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:23, 6 November 2012 (EST)