During the summer of 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic forced theaters worldwide to cancel their programs, the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival (SF Shakes) broadcast a socially distanced production of King Lear (Elizabeth Carter, director) designed for live-streaming on YouTube.^[1] The production was insightful not only for the technological feat required to produce it—each cast member performed and streamed their part live from a separate location in front of a green screen while the editing team reassembled the footage to give the illusion that the actors were in the same place in real time—but also for the many casting and setting decisions the production team employed. Set in Washington, DC, amid a backdrop of Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests and civil unrest, the performance spotlit racial strife made exigent in the wake of George Floyd’s and so many others’ murders at the hands of police. It did not take a trained performance critic to figure this out: many scenes, for instance, began with a character onstage listening to a news report about BLM protests before beginning their own scripted dialogue, showing an effort to connect the racial turmoil of 2020 with the political turmoil regarding Lear’s succession.

What was less immediately obvious, at least to me as an audience member, was the significance behind the non-traditional casting method employed by the production team.^[2] The performance employed a diverse group of actors, casting many actors of color in traditionally white roles and assigning several male roles to female actors. The role of Lear, for instance, in an act of gender reversal, was played by actress Jessica Powell. While Powell is a white woman, all of Lear’s children were played by women of color. Since the production was live-streamed on YouTube, SF Shakes assigned an intern to provide commentary on the performance in the virtual chat, explaining, among other things, the logic behind the casting for curious audience members. This commentary revealed that casting decisions were neither random nor purely meritocratic.^[3] The intern explained to the audience that all of the parental figures and senior nobles (Lear, Kent, and Gloucester) were cast with white actors, while most of the younger generation (Cordelia, Regan, Goneril, Edmund, Edgar, and Albany) were played by actors of color (San Francisco Shakespeare Festival, n.d.). This commentary explained how race was incorporated into the casting of the play but stopped short of explaining why the production employed race in this manner. SF Shakes’s approach signaled to the audience that actors’ intersectional identities, particularly their race and gender, were important to the production but left it to the audience to determine what these choices meant (Figure 1).^[4]

That SF Shakes felt the need to signal and explain the logic behind their casting decisions suggests that they did not feel confident audiences would notice these patterns (i.e., that older characters were played by white actors, while younger characters were played by actors of color) without prompting.^[5] This would make sense if inclusive casting practices were uncommon and therefore unfamiliar to audiences, thus necessitating an explanation. That did seem to be the case with their use of technology, which was relatively novel, and the crew member in the chat spent much of their time explaining how the technology of the socially distant production functioned. However, unlike live-streaming, which may be a rare medium for live theater companies like SF Shakes, non-traditional casting is the norm now when it comes to Shakespeare performances. Many major Shakespeare theaters, including the Royal Shakespeare Company and Shakespeare’s Globe in London, operate using an inclusive casting process and state their dedication to casting diverse actors in Shakespeare’s plays on their websites (Royal Shakespeare Company, n.d.; Shakespeare’s Globe, n.d.). In fact, non-traditional casting has become so normalized in Shakespeare performances that when a 2015 production of Shakespeare’s history plays by director Trevor Nunn included an all-white cast, the production was widely criticized. Malcolm Sinclaire, president of the actor’s union Equity, asked of the production, “Can it be acceptable best practice in 2015 to cast a project such as this with 22 actors but not one actor of colour or who apparently identifies themselves as having a disability?” (quoted in Owen, 2015). Nunn’s own response to this criticism showed that even he saw his practice as a deviation from industry standards, defending his choice by saying, “The connections between the characters, and hence the narrative of the plays, are extremely complex, and so everything possible must be done to clarify for an audience who is related by birth to whom. Hence, I decided that, in this instance, these considerations should take precedence over my usual diversity inclination” (quoted in Owen, 2015).^[6]

Since SF Shakes’s diverse cast was, then, not an exception but rather a staple of the industry, their decision to identify their casting logic to audience members takes on extra significance. While audiences may be used to seeing actors of color playing historically white roles, that does not mean they are accustomed to interrogating the meaning behind such casting, or even noticing patterns in casting when such patterns exist. As such, SF Shakes’s explanation of their practice put the performance into a conversation about the semiotics of race currently taking place in the academy regarding the difficulty many teachers face facilitating the discussion of race with their students. Discussing performance approaches to teaching Shakespeare’s plays to middle and high school students, Gina Bloom, Nicholas Toothman, and Evan Buswell (2021) have argued that such approaches often treat the body as “a transparent tool of expression,” and rarely invite students to consider the meaning of actors’ bodies in performance (32). Speaking of his experiences teaching Shakespeare as a Black man for majority-white university students, Eric De Barros (2020) describes:

There has never been an occasion when I didn’t have to help my students literally see early modern representations of race before struggling, often against complete silence or stiff resistance, to engage them in a discussion of the past and present interpretive value of race. (p. 77)

What Bloom et al. and De Barros illustrate for the classroom, SF Shakes shows for the theater: a colorblind response from students or audiences, respectively, is often the norm, and if either professors or performers want their audiences to pay attention to race in Shakespeare’s plays, let alone examine how the interconnected nature of an actor’s various identities engages with the role they are performing, audiences will likely need to be trained to do so.

This chapter responds to a tension outlined by RaceB4Race (RB4R) scholarship. On one hand, by taking modern adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays that employ experimental and non-traditional casting practices as objects of study, the chapter responds to Mariam A. Galarrita’s (2021) call for teachers to find and teach early modern texts that do not contradict or erase students’ lived experiences. Performances of Shakespeare with non-traditional casts can potentially destabilize Shakespeare’s authority in the classroom and critique the white-supremacist and misogynist elements of his texts (Ndiaye, 2021). On the other hand, as De Barros (2021) reminds us in his RB4R presentation, “There is nothing new about a film devoted to the liberal pedagogical fantasy that Shakespeare, however employed or adapted, possesses the reform of power to save urban and Black lives.” Or put another way, requiring students to watch a performance with a diverse cast is not enough to produce more inclusive Shakespeare pedagogy: we also need to attend to how and why productions engage the identities of their casts and critique the implications that accompany casting decisions.

This chapter presents a teaching unit that aims to bridge this gap and equip K–12 students with the tools to analyze performances of Shakespeare’s plays that employ non-traditional casting practices. It is common for high-school and college teachers to use filmed performances to study Shakespeare, and many teachers also seek to equip students with the skills to analyze and derive meaning from the semiotics of certain performance elements such as costume or setting. However, it is far less common for high-school students to practice analyzing the semiotics of casting, even though these choices are often one of the major strategies productions use to interpret and adapt Shakespeare’s plays. Students need access to the  skills to analyze how productions of Shakespeare incorporate the diverse identities of their casts into performance so that students can evaluate how those choices contribute to larger conversations about identity and critique the meaning and interpretive implications that accompany those choices.

Lastly, the unit in this chapter aims to address the fact that often, students are not invited to see or discuss race, especially when studying early modern texts. This gap in students’ engagement with early modern texts has serious consequences in terms of student learning outcomes. As De Barros (2020) asks,

If students have been miseducated enough to miss—that is, “to observe, but not to see”—the workings of race in early modern representations, then what does that say about their capacity or inclination to understand and ethically respond to the difficult and complex realities of race in society more broadly? (p. 78)

By encouraging students not only to attend to casting practices but to critically analyze them as well, we invite a deeper awareness of the semiotics of race. Students are often eager to explore questions of identity in the classroom, and casting presents an opportunity to do so.

It is not uncommon for a Shakespeare unit to begin by stressing the need for students to read drama differently from how they read other texts. Consider, for instance, this passage from Edward Rocklin’s (2005) Performance Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare:

Both the dramatic medium of the theater and the dialogue are “second languages” to our students, and teaching Shakespeare therefore means teaching them to read Shakespeare through performance—that is, to help them develop ways of using their minds and bodies not taught in most literature classrooms. (p. 64)

When students are tasked with analyzing drama in performance, as opposed to analyzing a dramatic text, the challenges only increase, as learners are forced to derive meaning from the visual, oral, and aural, rather than just the written (see Houk’s chapter on multimodal ways of reading Shakespeare in this volume). Rocklin stresses the importance of teaching students to see and hear possibilities that a written text affords, emphasizing a focus on costumes, bodily expressions, and the behavior of silent characters (pp. 57–58). Missing from this introduction to reading drama, and from many resources on drama-based approaches to Shakespeare, is a discussion of casting practices and the semiotics of actors’ bodies onstage. A reader of Rocklin’s book may well be prepared to teach students to notice a costume or gesture but is not likely to be equipped with the tools to help students read casting practices. In such cases, students may assume a “color-blind” approach to viewing a performance, which encourages students to ignore race rather than adopt a critical approach.

To address this gap, this chapter proposes a unit designed to engage students in the practice of analyzing casting choices. The unit is composed of three activities focused on Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice (hereafter Merchant), each designed to scaffold towards a more complex analysis of casting choices. Each activity is followed by a short discussion engaging with themes or ideas that may emerge from students’ engagement with the activity. Merchant is a particularly useful play for guiding students towards a number of social-justice and identity-oriented questions. The play challenges, and often simultaneously perpetuates, antisemitic, misogynist, and racist notions. While students are quick to spot the unfairness of Portia’s confinement to her deceased father’s will, as well as the blatant antisemitism directed towards Shylock, I focus here on the characters Morocco and Arragon, who often receive less attention in classrooms. Morocco and Arragon (and their representations in performance) are often thought of as little more than comic diversions from the play’s two main plot lines, but both provide opportunities for discussing early modern gender, racial, and sexual norms, as well as the consequences of performance choices when producing the play today.

Proposed Unit Design

In three sections, students will examine how casting choices influence their reading of a text, develop interpretive claims about casting choices, and practice designing their own performances as if they were a casting director and had to defend those choices. Each section is designed as an in-class activity, though some of the material could be adapted as a take-home exercise. Section III in particular could be expanded into a larger term project or essay assignment, or adapted to cover different scenes. The three sections are scaffolded to build on the skills and concepts of the previous ones, increasing the cognitive load for students as they gain familiarity and experience discussing casting. Included are estimates of how much time to expect each section to take. These are rough estimates, and teachers may need to make adjustments to suit their unique learning contexts.

Section I: (20–30 minutes)

Learning Outcomes

1. Examine how casting choices impact performance.
2. Articulate arguments about how race produces meaning in performance.
3. Practice and gain comfort in having conversations about actors’ bodily differences.

This activity provides an opportunity to practice making claims about how casting choices influence the understanding of texts. It asks students to imagine how including a diverse cast can change how we perceive a performance and understand different characters. The activity draws on an excerpt from Merchant where the Prince of Morocco tries his luck in marrying Portia by playing the chest game devised by her deceased father. Morocco has to choose one of three chests, each with a riddle aimed at confusing suitors deemed undesirable from choosing correctly. If Morocco, or any other suitor, chooses the chest with Portia’s picture inside, he can marry her. If he chooses any of the other two, he must swear to never marry anyone, ensuring he will have no heirs. Portia, for her part, has no say in the matter. She cannot marry anyone who does not participate in this game and must marry the first suitor who chooses the correct chest, regardless of her personal feelings towards him. Morocco is described by Shakespeare as a tawny moor (Shakespeare, n.d., 2.1.1sd), suggesting he has brown skin, in contrast to Portia, who is described throughout the play as fair-skinned.^[7] Because their racial difference is explicated by the playtext, even a theater employing a blind casting model would still likely maintain Portia and the Prince’s racial difference when casting these parts, a detail that will become important later.

Instructions

1. Targeted reading: Have students read the excerpt from Merchant (2.7.65–87) in pairs or as a class (Appendix A). If not reading the full play, provide students with some context for the scene, as described above (see Sanchez and Kiikvee’s chapter in this volume for suggestions on how to work with multiple thematic excerpts across Shakespeare plays).
2. Guided analysis: Ask students to examine Portia’s final comment:

A gentle riddance! Draw the curtains, go.
Let all of his complexion choose me so.
(2.7.86–72)

Specifically, ask students to consider the following: What is Portia literally saying about the Prince, and what does this comment suggest about her attitude towards him and people of his complexion?

3. Interpreting implications: Ask students to consider how Portia’s comment affects how they view her character. Does she seem more or less sympathetic? Why or why not?
4. Imagining performances: Finally, ask students to imagine a performance of this scene where Portia’s attendant Nerissa (who is onstage but silent during this scene) is played by a Black actress. Nerissa is Portia’s closest confidant and the two have an intimate friendship. Would casting a Black actress as Nerissa change our understanding of that friendship when Portia makes this comment? How and why would it change? Ask students to share their thoughts as a class once given enough time to consider their responses individually or in small groups.

Discussion

This section is inspired by an episode of the podcast Code Switch that discusses a high school performance of Merchant, where the production decided to cut Portia’s final line from this scene because some of the play’s characters, Nerissa included, were played by students of color (Demby & Meraji, 2019). Portia’s comment is deeply racist, suggesting she wants no man of color (of the Prince’s complexion) to succeed in marrying her.^[8] Portia’s disgust seems to stem from the Prince’s skin color and not his poor logic in choosing the wrong box, or anything to do with his character. Modern performances often cut this line to keep from painting Portia as an abject racist and to maintain the audience’s sympathy for her.

This moment, however, and Portia’s derisive comment provide an opportunity for examining how our understanding of a character onstage can be influenced by casting choices. A theater that takes an inclusive approach to casting is likely to have a diverse cast of actors, or at least that is the goal. This means that Portia may be accompanied by actors of color when she makes this comment. By imagining Nerissa played by a Black actress, students are invited to see and explore how the inclusion of a person of color can influence the meaning of a scene. If Nerissa, Portia’s closest confidant, is played by a Black woman, Portia’s comment would change the way we understand their relationship. When I have posed this question to my own students, they are usually quick to begin articulating interpretive claims about this imagined scene. They often argue that if Portia makes this comment and Nerissa is played by a Black actress, then Portia does not view Nerissa as her friend so much as a servant. Some students come to the conclusion that if Portia makes such a racist comment in front of a woman of color, she not only has no regard for Morocco as an individual but also little respect for the women who work for her. This exercise gives students experience examining how the race of one actor can change how we view a relationship within a larger play, using the imagined casting of Nerissa as evidence to support that understanding. If there is time, you might consider asking similar questions about other characters in the scene. How, for instance, might our understanding of Morocco, who seems preoccupied with his own racial difference, imploring of Portia, “Mislike me not for my complexion” (2.1.1), change if his entourage included white men?

Section II: (45–60 minutes)

This section builds on the skills of section I, moving from imagining a casting decision to evaluating a decision in an actual performance. Necessary for this assignment are clips from Michael Radford’s 2004 Hollywood production of Merchant (at the time of this writing, available on YouTube and linked below, though it may be preferable to acquire a licensed copy of the film). This activity examines Radford’s interpretation of Act Two, scene seven, the same scene discussed in section I, and pairs it with Act Two, scene six, where the Prince of Arragon takes his chance to marry Portia. These two scenes provide an opportunity to examine two distinct and contrasting casting choices in action and how casting decisions can play a part in the process of racialization.

Learning Outcomes

1. Practice cataloging casting decisions in performance.
2. Begin articulating arguments about how casting conveys an interpretation of the play and its characters. Continue practicing discussing questions of race and gender through performance.

Instructions

1. Critical viewing: Students watch clips of Morocco (Bravo, 2012) and Arragon (Barton, 2011) making their choice of the chests in their respective doomed bids to marry Portia.
2. Paired cataloging of observations: Students in pairs jot down how Morocco and Arragon are visually presented to the audience and, time permitting, the same for their entourages. The focus is on cataloging what students see in the film, with attention to deriving meaning from these observations coming later. If students are struggling, or you want to encourage more detailed responses, ask students to describe the actors’ costumes, makeup, facial expressions, movements, and personal mannerisms. You might ask, does either suitor engage in any stereotypical behavior? You might also ask, how does each suitor interact with Portia? Ask students to share their lists, and catalog these observations on a chalkboard or overhead projector to aid students in noticing patterns later on.
3. Critical interpretation: Students explore differences they spot in the depictions of Morocco and Arragon, and between each of them and Portia. What do these differences suggest about their suitability to marry Portia? Does the fact that all of Morocco’s attendants are men affect how we understand his character? Similarly, what does the choice to cast all of Arragon’s attendants as women suggest about him? Why do students think the director made these choices? If students identified any stereotypes in part two, you might ask them to expand on those observations, asking: Do these productions increase or decrease your perception of these stereotypes? Why and how?
4. Considering implications: Show students where Morocco and the Kingdom of Aragón are located on a map in relation to Venice. Ask students what they notice about the geographical distance between these places. Then, ask students to consider with a peer what Radford’s production suggests about the relationships between these three places. You might ask any or all of the following follow-up questions:
   • • If you didn’t know where these places were located, how far apart would you think they are based on this production? (Or, alternatively, you could ask this question before going to the map to gauge how distant students imagine these places to be after watching the film.)
     • Which characters seem racially different from one another? What in the film suggests that difference?
     • What does this film suggest about people from Morocco or Aragón, compared to Venice?
     • Do you think this film is perpetuating any stereotypes? Are the casting and acting decisions socially responsible?

Discussion

There is a wealth of detail in these two scenes for students to observe and examine, even if students ignore the dialogue and only pay attention to what they see onscreen. Students may notice that Radford’s Morocco dresses differently from Portia, is accompanied by a large group of men, and occasionally makes sexually suggestive expressions or gestures towards Portia. When asked why Radford’s Morocco is unsuitable to marry Portia, students may point out his foreignness, aggressive masculinity, and sexually charged behavior. Students may also identify Morocco’s hypermasculinity or sexual aggressiveness as perpetuating racial stereotypes of Black men.

When discussing Radford’s Arragon, on the other hand (who geographically is just as foreign to Portia as Morocco), students may describe Arragon as exhibiting stereotypically feminine behavior. Actor Michael Gil wears heavy makeup, fusses with his hair, is followed by an entourage of women, and seems disinterested in Portia as a wife. Students may interpret Arragon as stereotypically gay. However, students may also point out that Arragon’s costuming is not that different from the play’s Venetian characters. Students may point out that Arragon’s femininity and possible queerness stands in sharp contrast to Morocco’s hypermasculinity, potentially going so far as to suggest a European affinity Arragon shares with the play’s Venetians.^[9] Arragon is an undesirable husband for Portia primarily because he is feminine, less so because he is a foreigner.

The production establishes (anachronistically) Arragon as European, despite the historical kingdom of Aragón’s closer proximity to the kingdom of Morocco than to Italy. The production participates in perpetuating a historical fiction that Europe was racially homogenous in the early modern period and racially distinct from Northern Africa. Many students when asked what this film suggests about people from this period will make similar observations. Though they may not use the same vocabulary, students may notice that the film suggests people from Spain are the same race as people from Italy but distinct from those from Morocco. If learners make these observations, they may accuse the film of being racist, as well as homophobic. You might enrich this conversation by presenting students with the idea that race is socially constructed, explaining what that means, and inviting them to share how they see this film participating in that process, or asking them to write their reflections to that question on an exit ticket.

Section III: (60–90 minutes)^[10]

Students assume the role of casting director for a “production” of Act Two, scene seven of Merchant, using casting choices to explore the construction of Morocco’s racial otherness along with his masculinity.

Learning Outcomes

1. Consider the challenges and questions that come with conscious casting choices.
2. Articulate interpretations of a scene through casting decisions.
3. Critically examine and workshop casting choices.
4. Develop a metacognitive awareness of thought processes when making casting decisions and considering bodily differences.

Instructions

1. Preliminary read-through. In groups of three to four, students read through an excerpt from Merchant 2.1.1–49 where Morocco first meets Portia and states his intention to play the chest game (Appendix B). For context, he is the first to take this risk, and several suitors have left Portia’s residence after learning the only way to marry her is to play the game and risk never marrying altogether.
2. Group meaning-making. As a group, students work through a basic understanding of this scene and the Portia-Morocco interactions. Ask students to collectively address how they think each character feels about the situation before them. Ask students why Morocco seems so willing to risk his future to marry Portia. What does he seem to think he will gain by playing? And what is Portia’s attitude towards Morocco during all of this? Students should record their answers, as well as any disagreements they may have about the characters’ motivations.
3. Group casting. Students cast roles in this scene using a google image search for famous actors/public figures. It may be necessary to give each group a direction to guide their casting, such as asking one to cast Morocco as a woman or another to cast someone in the scene as a wheelchair user. While they make these decisions, ask students to develop ideas about how their understanding of these characters changes when the roles are cast differently.
4. Editing text. With roles cast, students begin editing the text. For instance, if Morocco is a woman, students may wish to change some pronouns, or they might choose to leave the text unchanged. They should track these decisions and practice justifying those choices by stating how these changes contribute to their interpretation of the scene.
5. Presenting. Students present their “productions” to the class, showing how they chose to cast each part and what edits they made to accommodate those casting choices. If time permits, each group might field questions from the class about their choices.
6. Reflective writing. Students produce solo reflective writing on the process of casting people with certain bodies in certain roles. Did peers say anything insightful about how we read bodies during this process? Were they ever uncomfortable during this process and why? Students should finish their reflections by addressing what this process revealed to them about how they perceive people with different physical traits, skin colors, genders, or abilities.

Discussion

This final section is more open-ended than the previous two, and while the instructions are longer, teachers will notice that they leave a lot more room for adaptation and improvisation. In short, this section asks more of the teacher to make it work for their classrooms, and the work students produce is less predictable. This is by design. A key goal of this unit is to encourage students to reflect on how they assign meaning to different bodies, and each student will approach this assignment from a different perspective. Students may note in their reflections that they felt uncomfortable making casting choices or that they were afraid of being perceived as racist. They may try to opt out of the decision-making process by randomly casting actors or casting a racially homogenous group of actors. If this is the case, consider inviting students to examine the effects (rather than the intentions) of their casting. The goal is not to have students establish a set of best practices for theater companies but to wrestle with the challenges that accompany casting decisions.

Conclusion

Implementing this unit necessitates devoting a substantial amount of time to a small section (three scenes) of a single play, with less direct attention to the text than some teachers may be accustomed to. English teachers may be wary of devoting so much time to visual analysis and so little to conventional textual analysis and close reading. This unit, instead, embraces the postmodern reality articulated by Valerie Fazel and Louise Geddes (2017) that “finding the ‘truth’ of Shakespeare’s text is no longer the endgame of literary criticism. Instead, Shakespeare is the conduit for the exchange of ideas, a facilitator for explorations of methodologies, in much the same way that Hamlet is a star vehicle for a celebrated actor” (p. 7). Among the goals that this chapter aims to achieve is to introduce learners to different ways of performing literary criticism that reflect the changes that the discipline has undergone in recent years, while simultaneously developing their analytic and interpretive skills. Further, by asking students to engage with Shakespeare clips on YouTube and to imagine their own productions, students can practice acting as both producers and critics of Shakespeare, which Christy Desmet (2009) has argued “gives students a real stake in the shaping of Shakespeare for our time” (p. 69). These goals could also be accomplished with any of Shakespeare’s plays: section I could easily be adapted to examine racist comments by, say, Iago or Brabantio in Othello, but even plays not so explicitly “about” race can be used in this manner. Virtually any modern performance or film adaptation of Shakespeare’s work will feature a diverse cast of actors and therefore provide an opportunity to examine intersecting identities on stage or screen. One might ask students, for instance, how Julie Taymor’s decisions in her 2010 Hollywood production of Shakespeare’s Tempest to cast a white female Prospero (Prospera) or a Black male Caliban construct, perpetuate, or challenge stereotypes of race and gender.

After completing this unit, students will be better prepared to spot the workings of bodily difference on stage and engage with modern adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays more critically. Many of the skills students practice in this unit align with common English language arts learning outcomes. In section I, for instance, students practice articulating how the race of one actor could change the way they understand a scene, in much the same way they might argue how an author’s choice of one word over another affects meaning. Section II asks students to observe, analyze, and interpret performance choices, just as they might do for an author’s use of figurative language. But these activities also ask students to engage with performances as responsible, critical viewers. Through this unit, students are introduced to the social implications that accompany performance choices and cultivate an awareness of their own potential biases. They are invited to reflect on how race conveys meaning, as well as how race can be constructed through performance. Finally, this unit aims to provide an opportunity to begin correcting the miseducation that De Barros (2020) notes is endemic in US schooling, cited earlier in this chapter. When students practice discussing race in performance, they may develop their capacity to notice and discuss race and racism in other contexts, engaging with their environments more critically and ethically.

References

Barton, R. [@shakeoutloud]. (2011, December 5). Poor Arragon [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ignEvuBemU

Bloom, G., Toothman, N., & Buswell, E. (2021). Playful pedagogy and social justice: Digital embodiment in the Shakespeare classroom. In E. Smith (Ed.), Shakespeare and education (pp. 30–50). Cambridge University Press.

Bravo, J. [@fRatzica28]. (2012, December 18). Merchant of Venice—The three chests [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSdhHawwt0U&t=1s

De Barros, E. L. (2020). Teacher trouble: Performing race in the majority-white Shakespeare classroom. Journal of American Studies, 54(1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021875819002044

———. (2021, January 21-23). Who shot Romeo? And how can we stop the bleeding?: Shakespeare for social justice in urban America [Paper presentation]. RaceB4Race (RB4R) Conference, Online. https:// www. youtube.com/watch?v=rBi WdcshiaU&t=3902s

Demby, G., & Meraji, S. M. (Hosts). (2019, August 20). All that glisters is not gold [Audio podcast episode]. In Code switch. NPR. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/752850055

Desmet, C. (2009). Teaching Shakespeare with YouTube. English Journal 99(1), 65–70.

Fazel, V., & Geddes, L. (2017). Introduction: The Shakespeare user. In V. Fazel & L. Geddes (Eds.), The Shakespeare User (pp. 1–22). Palgrave Macmillan.

Galarrita, M. A. (2021, January 21-23). Getting out of the footnote: Racial trauma and education [Paper presentation]. RaceB4Race (RB4R) Conference, Online. https://youtu.be/gpAVZoXV99E?si=0N3C0rqQIz-fgLa8

Ndiaye, N. (2021, January 21-23). Personal communication. Scholars panel commentary. RaceB4Race (RB4R) Conference, Online.

Owen, J. (2015, August 15). Trevor Nunn defends all-white Shakespeare histories. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/trevor-nunn-defends-allwhite- shakespeare-histories-10457512.html

Oxford English Dictionary. (2023, December). Complexion, n. In OED.com dictionary. https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/4629836908

Radford, M. (Director). (2004). William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice [Film]. Sony Pictures Classics.

Rocklin, E. L. (2005). Performance approaches to teaching Shakespeare. National Council of Teachers of English.

Royal Shakespeare Company. (n.d.). Equity, diversity and inclusion. Retrieved March 22, 2023, from https://www.rsc.org.uk/about-us/policies/equity-inclusion-and-diversity

San Francisco Shakespeare Festival. (n.d.). Cast of King Lear. Retrieved April 17, 2023, from https://sfshakespeare.herokuapp.com/about-us/production-history/free-shakespeare-at-home-2020/cast-of-king-lear

Shakespeare’s Globe. (n.d.). Open meetings: Jobs & opportunities. Retrieved March 22, 2023, from https://www.shakespearesglobe.com/jobs-and-opportunities/open-meetings/

Shakespeare, W. (Playwright), Mowat, B., Werstine P., Poston, M., & Niles R. (Eds.). (n.d.). The Merchant of Venice. The Folger Shakespeare. https://folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/the-merchant-of-venice/

Thompson, A., & Turchi, L. (2016). Teaching Shakespeare with purpose: A student-centred approach. Bloomsbury.

Appendix A^[11]

The Merchant of Venice, Act Two, scene seven, lines 65–87

MOROCCO

Deliver me the key.

Here do I choose, and thrive I as I may.

PORTIA

There, take it, prince. (Handing him the key.) And if

my form lie there,

Then I am yours.

(Morocco opens the gold casket.)

MOROCCO

O hell! What have we here?

A carrion death within whose empty eye

There is a written scroll. I’ll read the writing:

All that glisters is not gold—

Often have you heard that told.

Many a man his life hath sold

But my outside to behold.

Gilded tombs do worms infold.

Had you been as wise as bold,

Young in limbs, in judgment old,

Your answer had not been enscrolled.

Fare you well, your suit is cold.

Cold indeed and labor lost!

Then, farewell, heat, and welcome, frost.

Portia, adieu. I have too grieved a heart

To take a tedious leave. Thus losers part.

(He exits, with his train.)

PORTIA
A gentle riddance! Draw the curtains, go.
Let all of his complexion choose me so.

Appendix B

The Merchant of Venice, Act Two, scene one, lines 1–49

(Enter the Prince of Morocco, a tawny Moor all in white, and three or four followers accordingly, with Portia, Nerissa, and their train.)

MOROCCO
Mislike me not for my complexion,
The shadowed livery of the burnished sun,
To whom I am a neighbor and near bred.
Bring me the fairest creature northward born,
Where Phoebus’ fire scarce thaws the icicles,
And let us make incision for your love
To prove whose blood is reddest, his or mine.
I tell thee, lady, this aspect of mine
Hath feared the valiant; by my love I swear
The best regarded virgins of our clime
Have loved it too. I would not change this hue
Except to steal your thoughts, my gentle queen.

PORTIA
In terms of choice I am not solely led
By nice direction of a maiden’s eyes;
Besides, the lott’ry of my destiny
Bars me the right of voluntary choosing.
But if my father had not scanted me
And hedged me by his wit to yield myself
His wife who wins me by that means I told you,
Yourself, renowned prince, then stood as fair
As any comer I have looked on yet
For my affection.

MOROCCO

Even for that I thank you.

Therefore I pray you lead me to the caskets
To try my fortune. By this scimitar
That slew the Sophy and a Persian prince,
That won three fields of Sultan Solyman,
I would o’erstare the sternest eyes that look,
Outbrave the heart most daring on the Earth,
Pluck the young sucking cubs from the she-bear,
Yea, mock the lion when he roars for prey,
To win thee, lady. But, alas the while!
If Hercules and Lychas play at dice
Which is the better man, the greater throw
May turn by fortune from the weaker hand;
So is Alcides beaten by his page,
And so may I, blind Fortune leading me,
Miss that which one unworthier may attain,
And die with grieving.

PORTIA

You must take your chance

And either not attempt to choose at all
Or swear before you choose, if you choose wrong
Never to speak to lady afterward
In way of marriage. Therefore be advised.

MOROCCO
Nor will not. Come, bring me unto my chance.

PORTIA
First, forward to the temple. After dinner
Your hazard shall be made.

MOROCCO

Good fortune then,

To make me blest—or cursed’st among men!

(They exit)